LATEST NEWS

Plot Details Revealed for Stephen King's 'The Shining' Sequel Novel

by
May 10, 2012
Source: Blastr

The Shining

Way back in November of 2009 we got word that Stephen King was working on a sequel novel to The Shining, the book on which the classic Stanley Kubrick horror film of the same name is based. Well, King has been hard at work on the book titled Doctor Sleep, and the reason we're so interested in it is because of the potential for a film sequel. Apparently the book is slated to hit shelves on January 15th next year, and there's a good chance a studio could pick up the film rights to the book before then. In the meantime, how about we give you the official synopsis that just made its way online from the most official source. Read on!

Here's the official synopsis (via Blastr) of Doctor Sleep from Stephen King's official website:

Stephen King returns to the characters and territory of one of his most popular novels ever, The Shining, in this instantly riveting novel about the now middle-aged Dan Torrance (the boy protagonist of The Shining) and the very special twelve-year-old girl he must save from a tribe of murderous paranormals.On highways across America, a tribe of people called The True Knot travel in search of sustenance. They look harmless—mostly old, lots of polyester, and married to their RVs. But as Dan Torrance knows, and tween Abra Stone learns, The True Knot are quasi-immortal, living off the "steam" that children with the "shining" produce when they are slowly tortured to death.

Haunted by the inhabitants of the Overlook Hotel where he spent one horrific childhood year, Dan has been drifting for decades, desperate to shed his father's legacy of despair, alcoholism, and violence. Finally, he settles in a New Hampshire town, an AA community that sustains him, and a job at a nursing home where his remnant "shining" power provides the crucial final comfort to the dying. Aided by a prescient cat, he becomes "Doctor Sleep."

Then Dan meets the evanescent Abra Stone, and it is her spectacular gift, the brightest shining ever seen, that reignites Dan's own demons and summons him to a battle for Abra's soul and survival. This is an epic war between good and evil, a gory, glorious story that will thrill the millions of hyper-devoted readers of The Shining and wildly satisfy anyone new to the territory of this icon in the King canon.

Following Danny as an adult sounds a little to easy, but the story does have some interesting elements to it. Of course, if it were ever to be turned into a film, there's no possible way it could live up to the hype and would forever be eclipsed by The Shining which is a masterpiece of a horror film if I've ever seen one. In addition, not only is Stanley Kubrick not around to direct the sequel (I doubt he'd do it anyway), but this doesn't really sound like it's in the same spirit (no pun intended) as The Shining and would essentially feel like a completely isolated film rather than a direct sequel. But maybe that's not a bad thing. I suppose fans can reserve their judgment until the book arrives, but we could be looking at a film sequel soon. Thoughts?

Find more posts in Development, Movie News

Discover more on ZergNet:

  • jah p
    I can't wait for this! I actually like the Shining tv series just as much as the version Kubrick did....
    • Hattori Hanzo
      Liked it better.  Kubrick's  The Shining concentrated more on Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson than the actual  book.  I can see why King didn't care that much for it.
    • beevis
      while kubricks version was ok - the tv version was a much better representation of the book....and i liked it better too.
      • Maverickgrrl
        The Mini series scared the living "room 212" outa me! MUCH better, and truer to the book.
        • beevis
          exactly -
          • Capn Trips
            The miniseries was hardly close to scary. All it did was demonstrate how some books just cannot translate literally to film, IE; the goofy hedge monsters.
          • beevis
            i agree on the hedges - i thought that was kind of ridiculous....but, maybe from a young childs eyes - it might be different, i guess. still doesn't change my feelings on the 2 films, though.
        • A______
           room 217.  Scared the number right out of your head, I guess...
      • Mag200723
        What was the tv version?
        • Walkingdeadkid
          King hated the movie version. He had pictured Rebecca Demorney as he wrote the book. Shelly Duvall was completely wrong, as was Nicholson. Also, the script was completely different. It focused on pieces of the book better left on the cutting room floor, and made up some scenes completely. It left fans of the book disappointed. So, King made a mini series with Demorney as a much stronger heroine, that stayed true to the novel. When casting Steven Webber as Jack, he originally had Tim Daley in mind. Tim turned it down as too daunting, but suggested Webber. King said if Webber wasn't right he'd scrap it. He wouldn't let a second bad version be made. But after seeing Webber audition, he realized Webber was the perfect actor. Thus, the mini series, available on DVD, was born.
          • DrewBee
             speak for yourself, king has commented on kubrick's film saying that it might not be perfect, but it is fantastic for what it was. it's online somewhere go do some research.
          • nathanville
            "it's online somewhere go do some research."  Thus we all see the perfect example of the word "oxymoron".
          • Chrissygfl
            Actually, if you did as you suggested, you would find that King was displeased with the movie - beautiful, but lacking story: http://moviejunkarchive.blogspot.com/2007/05/stephen-kings-shining.html Took me 30 seconds to find. What's your excuse?
          • http://twitter.com/joshua_beasley j t b
            Actually, King had to sign a contract that meant he could no longer slate Kubrick's version in order to get the TV rights, or something like that. Basically he had to play nice.
    • Damien
      loved that! got it on DVD somewhere!
  • Gerb
    Let's be clear though, Kubrick's Shining was more than a little bit different than the book. I'm sure that King's novel will be in the same spirit as his original story, and not Kubrick's "vision" of it.
  • mike
    Who would play Dan...? Suggestions?
    • Pennywaz
      How about Walking Dead's Daryl?
  • mike
    I could see Jeremy Renner or Giovanni Robisi. Both very good at playing strung out yet could both be badass "Stephen King heros".
    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RVOUNUVJBCDRUNZ4Q2L6PROO24 Duane
      Come on. You know they're gonna Gosling that bad boy up.  Not middle age you say?  Prosthetics.  Watch it happen.
      • mike
        I figure Shia LeBeouf. But the whole time I'd be waiting for Optimus Prime to come out slow and scary and then his robot voice kicks in "red rum, reeeeed ruuuum". Love Hollywood.
        • Skankyskeezer
           Please. No Shia LeBeouf. I don't get the appeal.
      • DrewBee
         godling gained weight for his roll in Lars and the Real girl, if he was truly dedicated to this role (if he got it) i wouldn't doubt his ability to gain weight or become "normal"
    • HazedMind
      I could sooo see Jeremy Renner for that role
      • Claycountynurse
        Yeah, Renner, age appropriate too
    • William
      Thomas Jane.
  • Mmmmmmmmmmm
    This actually sounds pretty sick. And as far as a film goes, Imagine if like some on a director level like Nolan or Danny Boyle sank their teeth into this. **wiggles in excitement of the possibilities**
    • Rpahlow
      Robert Downey Jr might be an interesting choice or maybe Matt Damien.
      • Claycountynurse
        Matt Damon can probably relate well with kids too, he's got a bakers dozen of them. How about Vin Deisel? I'm ready to see him something new , I'll have to read the book to see who it is
        • JustDancePartyStyle
          Matt Damon and Vin Deisel would relate to two different groups of people.  I think that Matt Damon would relate to a younger generation bringing a new audience to King's work.
      • Sontheimer91
        Please go back to your crack pipe.
  • Eddiet91
    you guys do know that stephen king didnt even like the movie interpretation 
    • beevis
      he didn't like kubricks version - which is why he had a remake done for tv.....and it was excellent.
    • LEE
      YES AND KING`S VERSION ON TV WAS TERRIBLE 
      • beevis
        in what way? the sequel was a better representation of the book than the original movie was. the cast/acting was better in the sequel. better atmosphere in the sequel - except for danny running into the 2 little dead girls, the original wasn't that great. the sequel was, by far, the superior film.
        • myclawismypenis
          Kubrick's version will outlive the other crappy version for generations(already has) to come because it was directed by someone that understood that movies and books are seperate in their presentation. Everyone saying that the TV version is better than Kubrick's is just some fan boy of King's....Kubrick's has already stood the test of time and ask any critic and you will get the same response, Kubrick's THE SHINING is a masterpiece.
          • beevis
            i've only read 3 king books. and i'm not going to lie when this subject comes up - the tv version WAS (for me) a better movie. you're the one who sounds like a fanboy. i like kubrick as a director - and i liked his shining.....but not because it was a great horror film. i thought it was an interesting way for him to run with the material -but it wasn't scary in the least. i was laughing during most of the second half of the movie - JN was comical - not scary  in it.
          • Clone.1
            I would say Kubrick THE SHINING is an excellent film, I really enjoy it, it just isn't an excellent interpretation of the book, as Stephen King himself has said, the book focuses on the Overlook Hotel being the evil factor which then affects Jack, in the film it is Jack being barking that is the focus, not the hotel. I personnally think Stephen Kings books are 1000 times better to read than to watch a screen adaptation of anyway!!
          • jessica james
            I read king's book,because i liked kubrick's film so much.The book was a tedious,melodramatic,cliched bore.Kubrick took a silly fantasy,and turned it into a dark and disturbing film.He also made the characters relationship and situation more real,as opposed to king's book.You believe a woman (like duvall's portrayal of wendy) would put up with a guy like torrance,not the one in the book.Danny in the book is a normal kid,which reduces the books power.Kubrick's danny seems truly disturbed,which is what i would expect from a 5 year old with psychic abilities,has an abusive father,and is stuck in the middle of nowhere.Any silly king fans who says the mini-series is scarier,or better acted,have no merit in judging films.Weber's acting is atrocious,seeing him trying to be threatening,is truly embarrassing.The only time i believed he was crazy,was when he denied demornay sexually.Demornay portrays the character too strong,so you feel no fear for her,because you feel like she can take him out anytime!The kid playing danny gives easily the worst performance.From his annoying voice,looks and acting as if he's trying to keep a straight face?Man,talk about cringe inducing.All of kubrick's inventions are part of pop culture(the grady twins,the maze,the manuscript,the rotting old woman,elevator of blood).King's story is an afterthought.This is why king hates kubrick's adaption,because it's far superior to his creation.Envy's a bitch.
          • beevis
            not a fanboy of king - a fan of good supernatural haunting. i guess this something we'll have to disagree on.
        • Capn Trips
          The acting and atmosphere in the miniseries was awful. The whole thing was so cheap and hokey.
          • beevis
            that's exactly how i feel about kubricks version - we'll just have to disagree.
        • leo3
          first of all, stop calling the tv miniseries a sequel; there's never been a sequel to The Shining before what King is going to release in book form.  and secondly, just because  a film adaptation is more faithful to a book does not necessarily make it better or even good.  The Kubrick film will always be held as a standard in horror, whether it lived up to the fans' expectations or not.
          • beevis
            kubricks version the "standard in horror"????? absolutely no way.....are you saying SK version was horror?.....i thought it was funny - not scary.
        • http://www.facebook.com/ChristopherSmithWasHere Christopher A Smith
          The original holds a special place in my heart because it's one of the first movies to truly terrify me. The way the cigarettes weren't ashed, the appearance of Danny's parents, the way Tony was portrayed, the dead girls, etc; it was all near perfect. To say that it wasn't great, or the remake is a superior film just because the original was interpreted differently is completely unfair. I am a fan of King, and I did appreciate the book, but I felt the miniseries held shortcomings. It didn't seem to focus so much on the alcoholism, when the guy jumped out and shouted that he was Rover or something it caused me to burst out laughing, and I also started laughing when the wife was being beaten with the mallet and then the black guy got hit once and passed out. Does the miniseries portray the book better? Yes. But was it a superior movie? Absolutely not.
          • beevis
            look - we could trade "tit for tat" and break down each scene - but it isn't going to change either of our minds. thanks for the reply, tho!
  • Damien
    I wonder if it will be made as a movie, would be cool
  • Voice of Reason
    Wow....am I the only one who read that synopsis and immediately lost interest? Steam? Half of the craziness, excitement and allure of The Shining was the non-Shining antagonist bringing out the crazy in everything. I can't help but wonder just how big the dump truck full of cash was that backed into Kings driveway in Maine to have him create this good vs. evil premise surrounding a collection of spirited weirdos drawn to one another inevitably clashing alongside a BruceBanner-esque Danny trying to find peace.
    • beevis
      i could n't agree more?.......if there is to be a sequel - danny HAS to head back to the hotel - how in the hell can there be a sequel to "shining" without the overlook?
      • Sher
         If it's a sequel to The Shining '97, there was no Overlook left.
        • beevis
          if you watch till the very end - there is a sign at the destroyed site that says it will be rebuilt.
          • Lore
            ...also, in the book something evil, in the shape of a manta ray, flies out of the Overlook when it's destroyed.  A sequel should definitely follow that up!
        • Davidmelnick43
           I remember that their was a sign saying it was in process to be rebuilt (in the mini-series).
      • leo3
        in your earlier post you bemoaned the fact that the miniseries was more faithful to the book; if you read the book in its entirety, you'd recall that the Overlook was destroyed in the end.
        • beevis
          my god - don't turn into an internet nitpicker. of course i understand that - but the fact that there was a sign at the end saying it will be rebuilt doesn't hurt the credibility of the film that came before that 5 seconds. it sounds like you're just trying to argue - and that's something you can do with someone else.
    • More Like Voice Of Idiocy
      You call the premise cliched, yet you're the one raving about some "dumptruck full of cash" BS.
      • Voice of Reason
        So Sorry, I forgot that I'm the legendary novelist that has more to answer for than King. The non-cliche statement I meant to rave on about was: I wonder how much unobtanium they had Seth Brundle teleport into his off shore Odin treasure vault account. Jesuschrist.
    • Frd
       If You've read the Dark Tower books, then you'll see the tie between 'steam' amd 'the breakers' I think......
      • Voice of Reason
        A tie-in intrigues me, but it still seems like its a stand alone concept being forcefully associated with The Shining? I dunno, it just doesn't sit well with me.
  • Masterofthehunts
    In the last paragrah, first sentence should have read: "a little too easy."
  • D S
    Yeah, I have a thought.  Learn to write.  "sounds a little to easy,..."  How about the correct word..."too?"  Proper English - you should try it, it's wonderful.
    • Asf
       Lo0k 0ut, itz the grahmmer police!@!
  • Auxemoron
    Can't wait!
  • Colburnjoshua
    Love how kings characters progress and have new stand alone stories. The dark tower series is an epic example, how the stories are endless if the timeline progresses on its own. When he goes, I do believe we may have lost the shakespeare of our era.
  • Lea
    I have to say I was very excited until I read the synopsis - it sounds a bit like Odd Thomas in a way. I thought it would be based more around Danny's dad haunting the Overlook and Danny having to return to deal with that and lay his demons to rest at last. Oh well I'll reserve judgment for now. I also preferred the tv version of the Shining - as King himself said, the Kubrik version missed the point (the boiler overheating being a metaphor for the dad going mad) and left out all the heart. Glad he's not directing the sequel!
    • Mikey
      The way I see it is that you can't say Kubrick's movie was bad just because it didnt directly follow the book. Kubrick is still a brilliant director and The Shining is still a brilliant movie, as long as you judge it separately from the book. It carries it own hidden imagery and messages.
      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZZF6D5RYB2QRQS6BOCW3PW6HQE Christina
        Maybe it's just me, but I found that it was more an excuse for Jack Nicholson to be crazy and for the FX guys to throw tomato juice around (even without the elevator bit). Mind you, I prefer horror films that really know how to scare you in such a way that you're hiding under the covers for weeks. Kubrick's Shining just seemed too much like another attempt at getting screams. The scene with the two little girls was awesome, though. But how could you not laugh at the person in the cheap bear suit?
    • Claycountynurse
      Don't know if we'd need a whole book for that tho'. Besides, who knows what subtleties may be found in King's story.he likes to bring in previous storylines, to touch on them.
    • Jamiepenter
      i think he's dead
      • William'sMommy
         Yeah, Kubrick died right after he finished filming "Eyes Wide Shut."
  • Lra233
    I highly doubt the rights to this book will be bought. If anything it will become another made for tv movie. Non king fans would be too confused by the differences between the two movies. As much as I love sai king, this book sounds like a flop.
    • Mr Aaronjones
      A flop!? Lol! I've heard some pretty stupid things before but a Stephen King novel FLOPPING? Name ONE of his books that has EVER failed to reach the New York Times Bestseller List; I DARE you. Hell, even his most obscure Bachman books have been bestsellers.
  • chills
    Stephen King rocks as a master manipulator of all things that send chills down your spine. This will be epic.
  • Kimberly123
    In my opinion, nothing will ever compare to "The Shining",   It was eerie, suspensful, and scary all in one.  I say leave it alone.  I'm talking about the one with Jack.
    • myclawismypenis
      Exactly. Plus, its already proven itself time and time again.
  • http://www.facebook.com/kathy.wilmottortorelli Kathy Wilmot Tortorelli
    Can't wait for the novel!!!  I also liked the TV series better than the movie!!!!
    • St_dot_elsewhere
      What do you know?  You like the Yankees!
  • Fumbling TowardsBliss
    Yeah, this pretty much sounds absolutely nothing like the Shining (and I've seen all the movies/mini series and read the book numerous times)- it sounds a lot more like some of King's newer books (last 10 years or so) where he has taken a far turn from his earlier novels. Now I love him, and have read SO much of his work, but to call this a Shining sequel- I think not. It is a new book in his newer style, that happens to feature Danny and shining (powers?). I was so excited when I read the title to this article, then I was totally let down by the synopsis. As Lea said, 'I thought it would be based more around Danny's dad haunting the Overlook and Danny having to return to deal with that and lay his demons to rest at last. Oh well I'll reserve judgment for now.' Would be totally awesome, and that would indeed be a sequel. To call this a sequel is a huge letdown. Oh and... movie? I prefer the book :P
    • Frd
       Yeah, just as in most of his characters from the past 15 years or so end up in 'Mid-World' ~ this sounds like Danny has crossed over (partly) to there too ~ still can't wait for the book though :)
  • Sherpa50
    Danny was only there one winter, not a whole year.
  • Kimclement
    Notice how "Green Mile " just never measured up to  the books in the series.  As did "Bag of Bones", etc..... Where's Rose Madder movie, I  would like to see that one.  .  Delores Claiborne  sucked, I''d like to see a movie version of Rose Madder, how would they pull that torture from her hubby off on film?
    • Singing_the_80s
      Totally agree! My favorite Stephen King book of all time!
    • beevis
      WHAAAAAT? delores claiborne was an excellent movie.....so was green mile however - i am with you on a rose madder movie.
      • Jwbj75
        No Stephen King movie has ever been as good aa the book. Stand By Me is the only one that comes close.
    • Tfcoffee
       "Delores Claiborne" sucked?  No way!  Kathy Bates was as good if not better in that role, than she was in "Misery."  As much as I enjoy King's early books, his later books show so much growth, that in many cases it's not the horror that's scary, but the reality of the character's lives.   
  • shadowfax42
    Lra233 " this book sounds like a flop." The BOOK will sell like hot cakes, regardless of whether some silly movie version is agreed or not.
  • Lostanubis
    Sounds sweet! Just the type of SK novel I like. :) And I'm likin' the thought of Robert Downey Jr., or how about Hugh Jackman? I could watch him watch paint dry lol.
  • Willowfly
    Kubrick's Shining was a major disappointment. I had read the book and had high expectations for the movie. It was a disaster of miscasting. Nicholson and Duvall were totally wrong for the roles. The "redrum" talking finger thing was just plain ridiculous. I hated it then and still won't waste my time on it. The TV version was much better.?
    • guest
      I didn't read your post before posting my own - and I couldn't agree more about the movie!  The TV version was a bit better, but the cheesy ending was awful.
  • JeriTurner
    I can't wait! <3 <3 <3 Stephen King!
  • Morginski
    Kubrick focused more on the visual style and tweaked the story to fit his imagination, which is what films are all about. His film is cinematically striking while the book focuses on producing an image in the reader's mind. It is really very difficult to compare and contrast the two because of their differing purposes. Looking forward to the book's sequel!
  • timothysnorlax
    The synopsis mentions how the ghosts of the overlook haunt him. It would be cool to bring Jack back as a ghost, constantly meeting up with Dan in two forms ("good" and "bad"). That would be a good way to bring Jack back. He really made the original what it was. The story would'nt be the same without him.
    • Sher
       My opinion about the relationship between Jack Torrence and the ghosts comes from King's re-life battle with addiction.  I see the "ghosts" as Jack's inner demons which is often talked about in addiction and recovery.
    • number one fan
      I agree, and when it says that Danny has to face his ghosts, I don't think it said which ghosts.  So who is to say (besides King) that his father is NOT one of those ghosts?  I'm wondering if we may be on to the "crux" of the book - the idea that Danny hasn't faced up to the fact that his father went crazy and tried to kill him and his mother.  Maybe he's living in fear that he'll go crazy too, that whatever defect, or demon, or whatever nameless thing that made his dad turn homicidal is inside of him, too, waiting for the right time to "come out."
  • DT
    one of my favorite king books is "the talisman" and it's sequel "black house" in which a young character is portrayed as an adult in the second book. Hopefully, he can do the same with "the shining"........
    • guest
      I would like a sequel to the sequel too.  We were left too much in the air at the end of Black House.  I don't think Black House had the magic, awe and wonder of The Talisman, was still a good book though.
    • Candy_green_aaliyah
      Both those Booker where good I wish he would do another book on that's story line:)
  • Oy
    I think King likes to re-visit his characters. Meaning, the ones that impact him the most. I really think that sometimes he writes for his own entertainment, but even if that's the case his books still manage to entertain others just as much. :) I always liked the fact that his books contain so much realistic human vices and emotion, coupled with the paranormal. I'm looking forward to this.
  • Alvaro
    Me gustó la película de Kubrick, aunque comparto con King la molestia de que no fue fiel al libro. La historia de The Shining es una de mis favoritas de SK, realmente me voló la cabeza. Espero con mucha ansiedad que sea publicada esta secuela, estoy seguro de que el maestro no nos va a decepcionar. ¡Saludos desde Uruguay!
  • St_dot_elsewhere
    I have no idea what movie you people were watching.  The Shining was excellent because it was fun to watch.  While I agree that Duval was a weak link, I also believe that Nicholson made the film memorable and scary.
    • Tfcoffee
       I agree that Duval was a very weak link, and as much as I thought Nicholson would be good in the role, all Nicholson was playing, was himself!  I still like the movie, especially the ending, but Nicholson was horrible in the part of Jack Torrence.
  • guest
    The move of the Shining was appalling.  Jack Nicholson was completely mis-cast, as was his wife.  The stuff with the the little boy and the finger was just embarrassing.  The book was incredible, terrifying, amazing - the movie was actually funny and quite embarrassing.  I am fairly sure I read somewhere that King hated the movie too when it first came out.  I look forward to this sequel enormously.
    • Adam
      Bad casting aside ... It's is clear for anyone to see that kubric did not care for this movie ... Just google inconsitant set designs. And the main point is that kubric either missed or ignored that King was trying to illustrate that the overlook was pure evil, and instead tried to portray jack torrence as a alchoholic wife and child beater.
      • myclawismypenis
        IF that is what you thought kubrick was focusing on in his movie..then you didnt understand it, or didnt want to understand his perspective, which is usually he case for people sucking on King's nuts.
  • Mechnx
    Actually, I read the book first then saw the movie. I hated that Scatman's character died in the movie. The movie was extremely good (Jack did a supreme performance) the book was great. Will read the sequel the minute it hit's the market. 
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Denise-Marie-Merat/1352446218 Denise Marie Merat
    The movie version sucked, let's just say it.  Nicholson was over the top and either brooding or screaming his lines.  The tv series was amazing and well acted.  It was scary as hell.  The movie version had Shelly Duvall as the wife and she was unbelievably bad in it.  as Guest said, they were mis-cast and badly directed.  I love much of Kubrick's work, but this wasn't one of them.  King hated it and fortunately wrote the tv mini-series for us to enjoy.  The hedge scene with Jack was so good!!  In truth, the sequel synopsis sounds boring.
    • Idiot
      " The tv series was amazing and well acted. It was scary as hell." You couldn't be more wrong if you were trying.
  • Claycountynurse
    I wanted to think the little "redrum" boy from "The Shining" lived happily ever after.
  • Roland
    Have to disagree with your comment about the shinning being a masterpiece of horror, as anyone who read the book will agree, kubric destroyed the essence of Stephen king's story by utterly misinterpreting the overlook hotel and jack torrence's action as a result of the hotel.
    • myclawismypenis
      Doesnt matter if you agree or dont agree...in another 100 years, kubrick's version will still be around.
      • Roland
        Ermm ... So will the novel ...
  • Oythebillybumbler
    Typically any King story transferred to film ruins the story ... With two exceptions .. Stand by me and the green mile.
    • Arjh1958
      Also Shawshank Redemption, also directed by the great Frank Darabont.
  • Snor1972@aol.com
    Much as I love Jack Nicholson I disliked him intensly in The Shining. He was way over the top. He was more like a parody of the character in the book.  The Shinning is my all time favorite Stephen King book !  The movie was such a disapointment to me. Shelly Devall I believe was miscast in this movie. I never saw tv's Room 212 and hope to be able to tract a dvd down of it.
    • V Apple 74
      If we all want to compare the original to the made for TV, The Shining was released how long ago? The made for TV many years later. I'm a huge Stephen King fan and reading The Shining again right now. I agree the movie didn't work with the book. However, the made for TV wasn't much better, it followed the book more accurately, oooh, that doesn't make it better! Neither, in my opinion was that good. Books over movies any day, YOU make up what happens in your own mind, imagination, it's what makes books fun to read.
  • Percapitasmile
    Good vs evil. A travelling multi-state theme. Psychic prodigies being drawn together... dunno about you guys but this sounds like classic King getting back to what he does best imo - in fact it sounds like The Stand in some respects, The Gunslinger in others. I'm looking forward to it.
  • Drakonsgirl
    I hope the plot comes together, it only seems fair for those of us his fans who truly understands "King" to have my this "Doctor Sleep" for the film sequel. I myself have wondered what a sequel of "The Shining" would be like andall from teading the sampleleft of "Doctor Sleep", it looksto just asto I thought it would. King, A name deserving over all his master pieces. Good luck with this, continue to make us his fans andproud newcomers proud and happy. Healthy blessings to King, his family and all who know him. Thank you King for your outstanding talent to keep our minds wondering as well as busy. Saphira.
    • Saphira
      Apologies for the in-correct way of my comment, my mobile has a mind of it's own
  • Ilegg97
    Looking forward to the new book I'm probably the only fan of Mr.Kings fans that didn't like the movie " the Shining" I just didn't care for it. I did love the mini-series though. I found it to have more depth feeling and it truely to me was one of the best minis ever made
    • number one fan
      I read the book first, was very excited to see the movie when it came to TV.  When I finally got the chance to see it, I was so disappointed that I didn't even watch it all the way through the first time.  The hedge animals were the scariest part for me, as an early teen reading the book for the first time.  In fact, the part where the lion first stalked Danny, and then chased him up to the door of the hotel was so scary, I had to put that book down and pick up a Nancy Drew.  I was reading it pretty late on a Saturday night, everyone else was asleep, and it totally creeped me out.  It was great! That was the first time a book actually spooked me that badly, it made me a King fan for life.  I love to read his books at night, preferably during a storm.  
  • Adam
    Kubrick took a mediocre book and turned it into a classic piece of cinema. Plain and simple. Kubrick did King a favor. Nothing against King -- I love most of his work -- but the television version of The Shining was a joke. You all know it, regardless of whether it followed the book or not. 
  • Janine Hancock-lawes
    Elderly Americans in RV's touring and to torturing, sounds like a good SK to. As to the whole film thing.... I rather look at them as two different entities, too much is lost in translation.
  • Learnsomefact
    Wow... You talk about people sucking Kings nuts. When clearly some of you are all up on Kubricks. The movie was obviously terrible or King wouldn't have redone it. It's his work so he can do what he wants with it. And he created it in the first place so no one would know it better than him. Nothing against Kubrick but if you're going to call it the shining then follow it, or else give it a different title. And yeah the Kubrick Version may be around for 100 years but that's only because people who didn't read the book won't know any better.
  • Karl
    The book is 1 off his best without a doubt, the film was pretty good ... Anyway to make jack Nicholson have a cameo would be great(yes I know he died ,frozen to death) ... I'm sure if a film does go ahead , getting jack to do some creepy voice in Daniels head would work ... Let's see how the book turns out , kings 11 22 63 was fantastic.... The blokes still got it !
  • Ek8624
    Movies are always different to the books they're based on. Cinema is a separate and autonomous art form. Stanley Kubrick's movie 'The Shining' is a masterpiece of existential horror. It's vastly superior to the TV series of 'The Shining'. It's also the best haunted house movie ever. I love King's work, but nothing holds a candle to Kubrick's haunting vision. 
  • Attiegirl
    I hated the Kubrick movie. Too much Nicholson mugging,Shelley Duvall was miscast , the maze did not match the creepiness of the topiary animals and the mood of the film never matched that of the book. I am glad that the sequel will focus on Danny and not the hotel-it blew up remember-. I always wondered what would have happened to Danny and will make it a point to pick up the book the day it is released. I can't wait.
  • Williamson_sherry
    i would love for the movie to come out,its about time for a GOOOOOD SCARY one to hit.
  • Sandfairy5
    This is Steven King writing this, so there for anyone who dose a movies had better make sure it will be as wonderful as the book, and Steven kings books are wonderful!!
  • Cowboyhughes00
    Steven King is a great writer...............DO NOT PUT HIM DOWN, PEOPLE...
  • Sherek60
    Getting into the mind of Stephen King would be like someone whispering 19 into your ear. A story written by Stephen King will be different and enjoyable.  There is no one like him.  If he has say in the movie it will be good.
  • Diddums
    I saw the movie first when I was quite young, before I knew it was based on a book or anything, and I have to admit that I didn't like it.  It didn't scare me, it just seemed silly.  Now, having read the book multiple times, re-watched the movie, and having seen the mini-series, my own opinion is that the movie should be considered a complete stand-alone project.  For people who didn't read the book, I can maybe see the appeal.  But I found the movie to be an insult to every character who wasn't Jack.  I thought the 'possessed-finger-talking-Danny' was ridiculous.  For a five-year-old, Danny was a tough little kid who had more guts than a lot of adults, and I felt the movie really took that away.  (Which is why I don't mind that they aged him a couple years for the mini-series, because that's a tough role for such a young kid to play.)  I don't think little Courtland Mead was the strongest of actors to play Danny in the mini-series, but I did appreciate that he became an actual human being again.  As well, I much preferred Rebecca De Mornay as Wendy, because she didn't just run around screaming.  Yeah, there were shrieks, she was terrified (wouldn't you be?) but overall she was a much stronger character than Duvall's version (I admit that I actually rooted for Jack because she annoyed me so much).  She just seemed to have more confidence in herself and wasn't just... I dunno, down-played to some shaking, terrified woman.  I'd discuss Dick as well if I didn't have to go to work. As well, I thought the use of the mallet was much more affective than the axe.  With an axe, it's a lot more possible to die with a single strike.  You could with a well-aimed mallet, but the whole point of the mallet, I felt, was for torture.  He wasn't just going to kill Danny and Wendy.  He was going to make them pay for their disrespect and disobedience first, which is a lot scarier than dying with a single strike. And the whole issue with the freezing in the maze as opposed to blowing up the hotel... well, I thought the explosion added a sense of finale, and to something that until recently was a stand-alone novel, I very much appreciated it as a reader.  Freezing in the maze just seemed incredibly anti-climatic to me. I can admit to not having seen Kubrik's other works, so I can't say for certain whether I think he's a generally good director or not.  As someone who was a fan of the novel and watched the movie having read it, yeah, I was disappointed.  I know that most movie adaptations are often disappointing, but I felt this was a completely different project, and I can see why Stephen King was disappointed.  Sure, the movie is 'immortalised', but it's Kubrik's vision that people will remember, and not the novel behind it.  As an author, I'd be more than disappointed, I'd be devastated.  The novel scared me on a deeper level than the movie ever did, and that's the kind of fear that stays with you.  And I love a good ghost story, so when I go to see a movie based on a novel about ghosts, I expect to see ghosts.  And sure, there were some paranormal parts here and there, but... overall, I was disapppointed. As for the miniseries, well... The hedge animals were poorly animated, which can be excused due to being made in 1997 and probably on a limited budget, but I think the still shots of them were very effective - one second they're covered with snow, and the next they're not.  They were one of my favourite parts of the novel and I'm just glad they were included.  The ending scene was incredibly cheesy, but I'm a big sap so it made me cry anyway.  Do I think a better film could be made?  Definitely.  For now, though, I'll stick with the novel, and the sequel when it comes out. To be honest, I was relieved to read this synopsis.  No, it's not what I expected, but I heard a rumour that it was going to be about vampires, and I'm just so tired of vampires by now that I might have lost faith in Mr. King.
  • Red968
    People could argue all day about which version of The Shining was better.  I don't even try to compare them.  I like the Kubrick version because of Nicholson's performance and I liked the TV mini-series because it was more true to the book (although I like the hedge maze as opposed to the hedge animals).  On another note, I just picked up the Dark Tower book The Wind Through the Keyhole last night and I'm looking forward to reading it.....
    • Kerlyran
      Most of all, I would love to see a sequel to The Stand. My favorite King novel of all time.
      • Red968
        The Stand is also my favorite King novel of all time.  I've read it numerous times and it is what made me a Stephen King fan
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1270802379 Tino Juarez
    Thank God Kubrick can't do the movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Sirironface
    There's not a lot of directors who can fill Stanley Kurbick's shoes, but if I had to make a list I would put Ridley Scott at the top.
  • The_Man in Black
    I guess that no one on this site has read "The Talisman" and "The Black House", both of which are related by the characters that are in them and not related in what happens in each.  In the King Universe all things lead to the Tower and if he can tie the Dark Tower to Danny Torrence than that would be amazing.  I think that as a stand alone this book will knock your socks off.  I have read King since I was a little boy and he can always throw me for a loop.
  • Sbeauchamp
    Turning books to movies is always a terrible idea. Hollywood has nothing original do they steal books comics and such or do crap remakes
  • guido_jenkins
    Kubrik's version of The Shining was not that great...even King didnt really like it...it strayed way too far from the book and in doing so lost the best parts...one can only hope the next one will be treated with more respect for the original story from whence it is made...
  • chopper62
    Everything written here enforces my belief that, although SK has done some playwright stuff, he is an author of books. If you really want to enjoy SK, read it. The hedge scene is proof enough. Can't wait for this new novel.
  • dave87fez
    Sounds a bit like Black House was to The Talisman...following the now grown-up child character from the first story in a totally new adventure
  • http://twitter.com/JohnnyNeat Johnny Neat
    So he's like a proactive version of the inn-keeper in the shining who tries in vain to help him at the hotel? Anyhow sounds super interesting. I wonder if the child actor, now an adult obviously, is still around and or could play the older version. I'm sure they'll recast but still. P.s. Who can one sustain the awesomeness of Kubrick's Shining? 
  • TerriTattoo
    I'd read it and watch it, just for the sake of seeing what The King does with it and what it becomes once it's been adapted to the movies or TV.  As with all things Stephen King, I enjoy his creativity and a good scare (or sometimes, a good "think")....
  • Bubsy
    Mick Garris is a hack director, any horror fan knows this and this is why no true fans of the shining gave a lick of spit for the tv series. It lacked everything Kubrick's version had. I like King, but he's clueless about filmmaking. Sleepwalkers was one of the WORST films and King wrote that for the screen himself which was directed by Mick Garris.
  • Tom Hartman
    Kubrick did try to include the hedge animals but at the time, technology wasn't what it is today, and he said it just didn't look believable. That's why they used the maze. The story itself is much scarier as a book overall, but the film Kubrick made is still a very different and frightening cinematic vision. Instead of dark shadows, Kubrick showed long, brightly lit hallways...empty hallways...and they were downright creepy. I didn't like it at the theater when I first saw it, I felt Jack was over the top, and I didn't like the "finger thing" with Danny either. But it has stood up with time, in fact...seems "frozen" in time...it is definitely it's own take on the original story. I think it's worth the price of admission when Duvall finds out what Jack has been typing all that time lol
  • http://www.frivmini.com/ friv
    J'ai lu chacun des points et j'ai trouvé cela très intéressant
  • DixieNormous
    Kubrick's film is a masterpiece of horror cinema, much like many of King's novels are masterpieces of horror literature. However, when you watch a film you critique it for what it is - A FILM. You don't compare it to the source and determine which one is "better"; film and literature are two separate art forms and should be treated as such. Apparently Stephen King and practically everyone that is posting here needs to realize this fact.  
  • guest
    Anyone who thinks the TV version is better than the Kubrick version is a fool.  It doesn't matter that it's closer to the book.  It's just a crappy TV movie while the Kubrick film is a horror masterpiece.
  • tonylivesinmymouth
    I'm a lifelong fan of King's book and of Kubrick's film -- both masterpieces (but not of that ill-conceived miniseries which was laaaame). But I'm scratching my head over this ridiculous synopsis. It literally sounds like fan fiction run amok. Or like an episode of True Blood in its muddled, overreaching 3rd season. WTF?
  • http://www.kizi2.com/ kizi3
    Jack Nicholson was completely mis-cast, as was his wife.  The stuff with the the little boy and the finger was just embarrassing. 
  • http://www.kizi4.info/ kizi4
    I like things on its own very meaningful to me thanks for sharing
  • jterrygr
    The book itself scared me more than either of the films.
  • http://twitter.com/joshua_beasley j t b
    Kubrick's version was awful as a representation of the book, it can only be referred to as an adaptation. The TV series was, IMO, so much better because you know that that is how King envisioned it.
  • alexandra
    different people, different views. I do agree that the movie was more about Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson... Awesome actor dont get me wrong, not the character that King explained to readers in the actual book The Shinning. The movie was great if you didnt read the book before. That is my point of view.
  • george jimenez
    What is Stephen King's favorite book in his opinion?
  • http://kizi-3.kizi2.com/ kizi3
    I will find this book to read.through your post I was very interested to read them.Thank you for sharing.
  • http://www.yepi8.org/ yepi8
    I'd love to see this movie
  • http://www.yepi-yepi.com/ Yepi Friv
    A great novel.. And I hope this series will be great too
  • http://www.kizi800.com/ kizi
    Actually, King had to sign a contract that meant he could no longer slate Kubrick's version in order to get the TV rights, or something like that.
  • http://www.yepi-yepi.com/ Yepi
    Kubrick's version will outlive the other crappy version for generations(already has) to come because it was directed by someone that understood that movies and books are seperate in their presentation.
  • http://www.yepi-yepi.com/ Yepi
    I really enjoy it, it just isn't an excellent interpretation of the book, as Stephen King himself has said, the book focuses on the Overlook Hotel being the evil factor which then affects Jack
  • http://www.yepi-yepi.com/ Yepi
    in the film it is Jack being barking that is the focus, not the hotel
  • http://www.yepi-yepi.com/ Yepi
    I personnally think Stephen Kings books are 1000 times better to read than to watch a screen adaptation of anyway!!
  • http://www.yepi-1.org/ yepi1
    That's the scary thing for that boy. I do not think we should let the children feel scared when I think about something. thank you

FEATURED POSTS

GET MORE NEWS

Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly
Subscribe to me on YouTube for interviews 

POPULAR COMMENTS

NEWEST PODCAST

FACEBOOK + LINKS