Jump to content

Doctor Sleep (or Danny Torrance is all grownsed up)

Sbbruin

By Sbbruin
in Movies and TV

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sbbruin

Sbbruin 21867

Posted
Posted

Ewan McGregor cast to play Danny as an adult.

Quote

“Doctor Sleep” begins as Torrance carries the trauma of the Overlook Hotel into adulthood. He’s become a reflection of his murderous father, with lingering rage and a drinking problem that dulls his pain as well as his “shining” powers. Those powers return when he embraces sobriety and uses his gift to help the dying at a hospice. He establishes a psychic connection with a young girl who shares his extreme abilities, and who is being targeted by a group with similar abilities. They’ve found that their powers grow if they inhale the “steam” that comes off others with the power to shine, when they are suffering painful deaths.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
mr. sunshine

mr. sunshine 2832

Posted
Posted

The only thing I enjoyed about this movie is the chick with the hat’s rockin’ bod which unfortunately didn’t receive the proper exposure. If the plot only consisted of her exercising, trying on bikinis and in the sauna with her friends this movie would be much more watchable 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
On 6/15/2018 at 3:05 PM, XYZ said:

It’s not possible to do King justice on the screen.

In many cases, true.  Dreamcatcher was kind of an amusing book, not one of his greatest, but had its moments.  The movie was fairly awful though.

Dr. Sleep is similar in the internal, "mental" processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
Deej

Deej 76903

Posted
Posted
On 4/30/2022 at 9:01 AM, Bender Bending Rodriguez said:

It’s notable that neither of the two best King film adaptations are of the horror genre and one of them was a short story: Stand By Me and Shawshank. 

Don't forget The Green Mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2438

Posted
Posted
On 4/30/2022 at 9:01 AM, Bender Bending Rodriguez said:

It’s notable that neither of the two best King film adaptations are of the horror genre and one of them was a short story: Stand By Me and Shawshank. 

Pedantry alert: Both Shawshank and Stand by Me were novellas, not short stories, and in the same collection: Different Seasons.  Pretty amazing for a couple of the GOAT movies to come from one collection. Apt Pupil is in that collection and is an incredible story, but the movie is just adequate. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nole-4-Life

Nole-4-Life 804

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/30/2022 at 10:01 AM, Bender Bending Rodriguez said:

It’s notable that neither of the two best King film adaptations are of the horror genre and one of them was a short story: Stand By Me and Shawshank. 

Weren't they both short stories?

EDIT: Pardon moi...novellas.

Edited by Nole-4-Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30002

Posted
Posted

Then King made his own version of The Shining with the swaggering brag that "If you want something done right, do it yourself." It was awful.

Kubrick elevated the material. I think it's better than the very good movies you name, but I also think Kubrick is the greatest director of his time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Then King made his own version of The Shining with the swaggering brag that "If you want something done right, do it yourself." It was awful.

Kubrick elevated the material. I think it's better than the very good movies you name, but I also think Kubrick is the greatest director of his time.

I rather vehemently disagree that The Shining miniseries was awful.  It was different.  It was truer to the source material.  It may be less of a film in many cinematic respects, but it is a fine show.  And, other than things cinematic, I can't think of anything that Kubrick's version added to the source material, that is, to the story.

One thing about the source material and the miniseries is that it is clearer that Jack Torrance is suffering from untreated abstinent alcoholism, aka a "dry drunk."  I suppose to a layperson, crazy is crazy and any old depiction will do.  But King writes well and poignantly on the subject matter.  And, in the book, Jack and Wendy both are deeper and more sympathetic characters, at least at times.

The Shining was written before King attained, or, as far as I know even seriously attempted sobriety, which he achieved in 1987.  I think part of his objective in writing Dr. Sleep was to "come full circle" via Danny's inheritance of Jack's alcoholism and his recovery.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/30/2022 at 9:01 AM, Bender Bending Rodriguez said:

It’s notable that neither of the two best King film adaptations are of the horror genre and one of them was a short story: Stand By Me and Shawshank. 

Green Mile was very good, as well.

Also, I have a rather soft spot for Hearts in Atlantis and I double-dog dare you to criticize a Sir Tony film.  Well, criticize it all you want, but don't dare dismiss it.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52582

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Kubrick's The Shining is a greater achievement than the novel. The novel is good. The movie is much richer and deeper.

I'm a Stephen King fanboy, and I agree with this.  It's one of only two of his stories where I thought the movie was significantly better than the book.  The other is Shawshank Redemption.

I thought the following film adaptations were good to great:  The Shining, The Dead Zone, Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and the 2017 version of It (still haven't seen Chapter Two).  For the latter, I think that was partly due to casting, as I thought the filmmakers did an excellent job at assembling a pretty good cast of child actors.  And the depiction of Pennywise was fairly close to the version in my head when I read the book as a child, scared shitless.

Carrie was just okay, but probably better in context for the mid-70s.  I never really cared for Misery, even though it was the only of his film adaptations to garner an Oscar (for Kathy Bates).  Others were entertaining as a kid (Silver Bullet, Cujo, Children of the Corn, the Running Man), but they're pretty meh.  Pet Sematary is one of my favorites of his, and I thought the movie sucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I'm a Stephen King fanboy, and I agree with this.  It's one of only two of his stories where I thought the movie was significantly better than the book.  The other is Shawshank Redemption.

I thought the following film adaptations were good to great:  The Shining, The Dead Zone, Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and the 2017 version of It (still haven't seen Chapter Two).  For the latter, I think that was partly due to casting, as I thought the filmmakers did an excellent job at assembling a pretty good cast of child actors.  And the depiction of Pennywise was fairly close to the version in my head when I read the book as a child, scared shitless.

Carrie was just okay, but probably better in context for the mid-70s.  I never really cared for Misery, even though it was the only of his film adaptations to garner an Oscar (for Kathy Bates).  Others were entertaining as a kid (Silver Bullet, Cujo, Children of the Corn, the Running Man), but they're pretty meh.  Pet Sematary is one of my favorites of his, and I thought the movie sucked.

A lot of the early movies seemed very "schlocky" for lack of a better term.  But on rewatch, perhaps with a greater appreciation of the source material, a couple of them are actually alright, Pet Sematary being one (with Fred Gwynne as Jud Crandall being damn near perfect) and Christine.  The recent Pet Sematary, with higher production values and a starrier cast (I'm a Jason Clarke fan), was terribad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52582

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A lot of the early movies seemed very "schlocky" for lack of a better term.  But on rewatch, perhaps with a greater appreciation of the source material, a couple of them are actually alright, Pet Sematary being one (with Fred Gwynne as Jud Crandall being damn near perfect) and Christine.  The recent Pet Sematary, with higher production values and a starrier cast (I'm a Jason Clarke fan), was terribad.

I still think Pet Sematary is bad, and even Fred Gwynne couldn't carry it.  It disliked it so much I never bothered to see the remake.

I agree that Christine was also pretty good.  It's one of my favorites of his novels, and aside from the "scholckiness," it did a pretty good job at depicting the themes of teenage innocence and awkwardness in the novel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30002

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I rather vehemently disagree that The Shining miniseries was awful.  It was different.  It was truer to the source material.  It may be less of a film in many cinematic respects, but it is a fine show.  And, other than things cinematic, I can't think of anything that Kubrick's version added to the source material, that is, to the story.

One thing about the source material and the miniseries is that it is clearer that Jack Torrance is suffering from untreated abstinent alcoholism, aka a "dry drunk."  I suppose to a layperson, crazy is crazy and any old depiction will do.  But King writes well and poignantly on the subject matter.  And, in the book, Jack and Wendy both are deeper and more sympathetic characters, at least at times.

The Shining was written before King attained, or, as far as I know even seriously attempted sobriety, which he achieved in 1987.  I think part of his objective in writing Dr. Sleep was to "come full circle" via Danny's inheritance of Jack's alcoholism and his recovery.

Of course, I respect your opinion. I will only comment on the idea of judging a film by how well it adheres to the source material. The King books that I read are often interior stories, psychological. He can write exactly what he wants to be in a character's mind and explain any action. Those are generally not available options in good filmmaking.

I don't know that it's a sticking point for you, but many fans of the book lamented to lack of moving topiaries. I wouild argue that that is an effective detail of the book that would have not had nearly the impact on film. I favor Kubrick's choice.

On the grander scale, Kubrick saw the material as about more than what is laid on the surface of the book. Maybe King did, too, but I didn't feel when I read the book after seeing the movie. For example, alcoholism is clearly an element in the movie. Jack's creeping malevolence is made more dreadful because of the past injury to Danny.

It's pretty much standard belief in film and writing for film that you read the book and then throw it away. A book is not a screenplay which is good because screenplays are usually miserable reads.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchookem

mchookem 16375

Posted
Posted

the topiary animals stalking both Jack and Danny were the most terrifying part of the book...I can still remember reading that for the first time, like 10 or 11 yoa, how my heart started racing! 

same thing with the line about Danny Glick floating outside Mark Petrie's window. i almost dropped my book the first time i read that...😮😁

which, speaking of, it's quite dated, but the tv adaption of 'Salems Lot was pretty damn scary for a 10 yoa at the time. it would probably bore kids today lol.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Augustus

Augustus 3061

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, mchookem said:

the topiary animals stalking both Jack and Danny were the most terrifying part of the book...I can still remember reading that for the first time, like 10 or 11 yoa, how my heart started racing! 

same thing with the line about Danny Glick floating outside Mark Petrie's window. i almost dropped my book the first time i read that...😮😁

which, speaking of, it's quite dated, but the tv adaption of 'Salems Lot was pretty damn scary for a 10 yoa at the time. it would probably bore kids today lol.

In that TV series, Danny Glick floating outside that window scared the piss out of my elementary school aged self.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Of course, I respect your opinion. I will only comment on the idea of judging a film by how well it adheres to the source material. The King books that I read are often interior stories, psychological. He can write exactly what he wants to be in a character's mind and explain any action. Those are generally not available options in good filmmaking.

I don't know that it's a sticking point for you, but many fans of the book lamented to lack of moving topiaries. I wouild argue that that is an effective detail of the book that would have not had nearly the impact on film. I favor Kubrick's choice.

On the grander scale, Kubrick saw the material as about more than what is laid on the surface of the book. Maybe King did, too, but I didn't feel when I read the book after seeing the movie. For example, alcoholism is clearly an element in the movie. Jack's creeping malevolence is made more dreadful because of the past injury to Danny.

It's pretty much standard belief in film and writing for film that you read the book and then throw it away. A book is not a screenplay which is good because screenplays are usually miserable reads.

Well, note that I didn't criticize the Kubrick film at all.  It's a different work, a different interpretation, and that's fine.  It's a great film.  I was defending the miniseries, not criticizing the film.

I don't really have an issue with King disliking the interpretation. It can be a great film and an unfaithful interpretation of the written work that the author is entitled to dislike for that reason.  I don't know if King has or is capable of having an opinion of the film apart from the interpretation of his work. 

I think they each have their own merit.  As a fan of the stories, I appreciate the faithfulness to the original, at least in certain circumstances, i.e. Stand By Me.  When things get supernatural, it gets difficult to translate ala the topiaries, which no I don't have a problem with.  My principal problem I think is that I enjoy King's characters, and that is as you say an "interior" element that can be hard to capture.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rage-a-holic

rage-a-holic 4458

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, I have a rather soft spot for Hearts in Atlantis and I double-dog dare you to criticize a Sir Tony film.  Well, criticize it all you want, but don't dare dismiss it.

Hearts in Atlantis (the film) was based on Low Men in Yellow Coats, an integral part of the Dark Tower Universe storyline.

The film ripped out all the important Dark Tower elements and dumbed it down for audiences that need their stories spoon fed to them.

It was a complete waste of a film and Hopkins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rage-a-holic said:

Hearts in Atlantis (the film) was based on Low Men in Yellow Coats, an integral part of the Dark Tower Universe storyline.

The film ripped out all the important Dark Tower elements and dumbed it down for audiences that need their stories spoon fed to them.

It was a complete waste of a film and Hopkins.

While true as far as it goes, there's a lot more to the story than the Dark Tower elements.  I think it stands on its own pretty well.  The reason Ted is being hunted and the origin of the low men in yellow coats is largely irrelevant to the larger story of Bobby, Carol, Ted, and Bobby's mother.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Augustus

Augustus 3061

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

While true as far as it goes, there's a lot more to the story than the Dark Tower elements.  I think it stands on its own pretty well.  The reason Ted is being hunted and the origin of the low men in yellow coats is largely irrelevant to the larger story of Bobby, Carol, Ted, and Bobby's mother.

I enjoyed that film, and I've never been able to get into the Dark Tower stuff.  Tried more than once, it just doesn't hold my interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

I actually really love the story Hearts in Atlantis in the book, which is unrelated to the movie. It just captures a certain feel of nostalgia for an age I didn’t live in that resonates for some reason very strongly with me.

Yeah, I enjoyed the whole anthology somewhat more than I expected to, once I kind of figured out it wasn't horror.  King writing kids and youth seems to be at his peak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I’ll probably skip Doctor Sleep. I read the premise and thought it was really stupid. What does a vampire cult have to do with the shine?! 
 

I think King’s criticisms of the film are pretty valid, but both the book and the movie can be masterworks. 

There's a connection and it's pretty clear.  It's a very good book.  The movie was alright, but I almost always like the book better.  For King, though, the really book-accurate films, Shawshank, Stand By Me, and Green Mile are pretty damned good.

Spoiler

One thing that I think works quite well in print is the analogy of the mind to a filing cabinet, or roomful of them, also employed in Dreamcatcher.

It is curiously dissatisfying in films.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14508

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/1/2022 at 9:06 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

What does a vampire cult have to do with the shine?! 

I just finished the audio book for the second time.  It's really well done, is a good story, and really elaborates on the shining as a condition/ability.  I've seen the movie once and thought it did a good job of telling the story true to the novel, in the universe of Kubrick's Shining, while tying into King's Shining (novel).

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...