Sequel to The Shining?

[ShipOfFools]

I think some stories should not be revisited. The Shining is one of them; the book is one of my all-time favorites, however I can't see a sequel (unless it was another one about a haunted house or ghosts) doing too well. S. King should stick to new stories; Under The Dome was one of the best reads I've ever read, and is on par with some of his best works.

And no, neither movie is as good as the book. However, the 1997 tv movie was a decent stab at making the transfer to the big screen. It was a little too long, though, and dragged in places...and wasn't as scary as the book was. However, it was a pretty good movie, all the same (I own it on DVD.)

Kubrick's version, while good, has nothing to do with the original story, excluding that it's a family of wife, husband, and child taking care of a haunted hotel. He like took the basic stuff and threw most of the plot out. Nothing that happened near the end of the movie, actually happened in the book; hotel didn't blow up, the cook was killed instead of rescuing Wendy and Danny, etc.

[PhotonicGuy]

I am torn apart between my aversion towards sequels (they tend to spoil the quality of the first part) and my curiosity about what the Master King would be able to tell us (I bet he would make a great book). I think we have to leave it to him to decide, whatever he does, it will be a good decision.

[StephenKingman]

I think some stories should not be revisited. The Shining is one of them; the book is one of my all-time favorites, however I can't see a sequel (unless it was another one about a haunted house or ghosts) doing too well. S. King should stick to new stories; Under The Dome was one of the best reads I've ever read, and is on par with some of his best works.

And no, neither movie is as good as the book. However, the 1997 tv movie was a decent stab at making the transfer to the big screen. It was a little too long, though, and dragged in places...and wasn't as scary as the book was. However, it was a pretty good movie, all the same (I own it on DVD.)

Kubrick's version, while good, has nothing to do with the original story, excluding that it's a family of wife, husband, and child taking care of a haunted hotel. He like took the basic stuff and threw most of the plot out. Nothing that happened near the end of the movie, actually happened in the book; hotel didn't blow up, the cook was killed instead of rescuing Wendy and Danny, etc.

Couldnt agree more, except the part where you say the 1997 is a decent stab- it would be if not for the woeful child actor who played Danny, he is blatantly laughing in a lot of the scenes and ruins the effect of terror completely (seriously, watch the scene where the man with the moose mask jumps out on him, the kid is giggling ). Otherwise, it would have been a fairly good match. I think The Shining should just be left alone, as long as you accept that the movie is not similar to the book and that the book is fantastic you get the best of both worlds!

[laci_baby]

Danny was a great character, but the novel was, in my opinion and others more obviously so, epic. Sometimes, i agree, that books need sequels, but i think it would end up either ruining The Shining (hopefully not) or making it, if possible, slightly better. But why take that chance for such a book? The Shining was great, but it should be left alone without adding extra endings.

[oloroso36]

The Shining does not need a sequel, just as The Talisman did not need a sequel but got one - Black House. But, because I'm a fan, I will check out whatever Mr. King produces.