• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

the end of the shining

Wolfmans_BrothEr

Wolfmans_BrothEr

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
903
Ok I searched with no results and I'm kinda surprised this hasn't been asked already

Anyway if uve seen the shining then you'll know what I'm talking about, and if u haven't then u haven't lived

i wrote this referencing the picture right before the credits placing Nicholson in what's supposedly the Overlook hotel dated July 4th 1921, something like 30 or 40 years earlier than when the movie takes place, with Nicholson not aging a day.


I don't really know what to make of the ending, which is why I started this thread. From my first interpretation, I think jack had some sort of draw to this hotel. The hotel spoke to him (making him go insane) just like it spoke to Danny. If u remember when Danny and the chef are talking, and the chef says "not everyone who can shine is aware of their ability" or something along those lines. Jack was able to shine, he just didn't know it or accept it. And him getting the job is his connection/draw to the hotel. When I see the picture at the end, I feel like he's been reincarnated from someone who was previously/always there (when the guy in the bathroom says "uve always been the caretaker") which is part of his connection or attraction to the hotel.

From reading different analysi, I don't know what to think. One person went as far as to say that the picture wasn't even taken IN the overlook, and that the picture is from a new years eve party, not a 4th of July. He referenced a palm tree in the back, someone holding a noisemaker, (which was supposedly photoshopped into the picture on purpose) and the music playing as we see the final picture.

I've also heard a few people say the entire movie is a mirror of the novel. For example the color of the snowcats were opposite than in the novel, redrum becoming murder, and cud even explain the photo being dated mid summer but actually being from mid-winter, amongst other things

Another thing I've read was that the hotel had teleporting properties which can be identified throughout the film. The author felt certain hallways or rooms brought the characters to different parts of the hotel in a matter of seconds. But I kinda stopped reading when he started talking about Kubrick referencing Mayan symbols

I don't fully doubt any theory I've read since Kubrick paid such attention to detail and none of these would really surprise me

and if anyone wants to take a swing at the meaning of two guys going down on eachother in furry suits be more than welcome
 
Last edited:
In my op, there's really nothing much to say. The whole point of the movie is that the events are up to both the characters' interpretations, and the audience's.
 
Honestly your question seems to hold a lot of ambiguity. I'm actually having a hard time figuring out what that question is. You want abstract interpretations of The Shining, particularly in regards to the ending? Yet you don't provide any information as to what you consider the ending to be. Is the ending the entire part of the movie where Jack Nicholson tries to kiill his family? Is it the final chase scene in the maze, or is it any of the multitude of scenes in between?

Also you don't give any interpretation of your own which makes for a difficult starting point to a discussion like this.

And I really like The Shining, so I'd be happy to oblige you if I had a better clue to what you are talking about.
 
The most mysterious part of the ending that is the most up to interpretation has to be how Jack Nicolson's character appears in some old photo from 1918 or something like that at the end of the movie, right? Or maybe this thread is about that creepy guy in the dog / bear costume blowing the old man that comes near the end of the movie, whats the deal with that, right?
 
your question is incredibly ambiguous
however i wrote a ten page paper on the movie
if i was at my comp i would give a much more detailed answer however
i think the ending is very well done
it is what makes me say that it may be better than the book
stephen kings original ending had a very "deux ex machina" feel
in the movie the characters themselves play a much more active role
 
i do however recommend reading the book ... its still awesome and will help shed light on other wierd parts of the movie
like what touch is talking about
 
^
I took it as something similar.

I thought Nicholson was supposed to end up at the hotel and was supposed to try to murder his family. IIRC, they mention earlier in the movie that there have been other similar tragedies in the past. It was basically fate that Jack end up back at the hotel. He's always been there, his soul is trapped there, and his life has been leading him back there. Tony, the imaginary "friend" of his son Danny, knows this and is trying to warn him that the hotel is dangerous to him and his family.
 
Well, personally I think in the cycle of life Nicholson's character has always been at that hotel. In a sense the hotel is claiming what is rightfully its/his. Nicholson's character has always belonged at the hotel, his soul trapped in that specific instance of that ballroom party. So his role as the grounds keeper is just simply a return.

Ditto; it's "his" place. Reviewers were saying this as soon as it came out, and it only looks more obvious to me with each viewing (for it's also a personal favorite).
 
thanks for the edit. i also had difficulty with the original OP.

i agree with the others, his soul is trapped in the perpetual party under the surface of the hotel. it's stephen king like to appeal to such cheesy mysticism. zomg my soul is trapped, but it's a party... but it's trapped forever!
it also appeals to kubrick's sense of irony too.
 
L2R said:
it's stephen king like to appeal to such cheesy mysticism.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I don't think the photo was in the novel, or that king had anything to do with it. Supposedly it's a real photo from 1921 Kubrick or someone found in the library and they shopped Nicholson in. Apparently they were gona re-make the picture but Kubrick didn't feel the extras looked authentic enough
 
z+The+shining+photo+at+the+end+of+film+July+4th+1921.jpg

i haven't read it, just took it as a stephen king like ending from stuff i have read.

on another note did you see the homage in toy story?
galleryimage-2047636331-mar-12-2012-600x626.jpg
 
what i wanna know is, why would a perfectionist like kubrick leave the shadow of the camera helicoptor so obviously visible in the intro.
 
1.) To echo Wolfman, the end of the novel (and the miniseries, which follows the novel to a T) is radically different. No doubt this factored into King's disdain for Kubrick's movie, as well as those of many of the fans who'd read the book before the movie came out.

2.) LOL at the helicopter...I think it's almost impossible to avoid. Like most flubs, you can't unsee it once you see it for the first time; there's a great example at the beginning of Twister, when you can see the reflection of the helicopter in the car's windows clear as day as it parallels the vehicle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top