Stephen King gave us something of a prequel in Wizard and Glass, since he jumped out of the present narrative to discuss in detail events that preceded his chasing the man in black.
Matt Mueller at onmilwaukee.com has an article I enjoyed titled, "Five terrible movie prequels that could actually exist."
Muller's list includes:
- "Raging Bull"
- "The Godfather"
- "Blade Runner"
- "Pulp Fiction"
AND. . . The Shining. I had almost forgotten that was on the table. King is ready to release the sequel to The Shining, which already has some fans griping.
My three reasons why The Shining prequel is a DUMB and DUMBER-ER idea if it focuses on the Torrance family:
1. No Overlook. It's the Overlook that brought the spooks out. King starts the story where the intereting stuff happens! Why go back before the interesting part? Like, "Hey, let's do a prequel to -- Under The Dome." Or The Stand. Problem is -- nothing worth noting happens!
2. We already know the back story to The Shining -- we don't need a movie to tell us that particular part of the tale. It becomes nothing more than a story of drinking and abuse. Hurt without conclusion.
3. Danny would be really little, and unaware of his power.
Actually, the prequel would probably focus on the hotel itself. Now, having read King's original introduction to The Shining, which were several short stories from the hotel -- I have to say, that's scary stuff! I might actually be interested in that. (talkstephenking Before The Play)
Muller writes:
I love "The Shining." When people ask me what I believe is the scariest movie in film history, I say Stanley Kubrick's haunting, mesmerizing 1980 Stephen King adaptation every time. Kubrick was such a unique director, and he possessed such an understanding for what compositions, images, ideas and sounds would rattle his viewers to their core. "The Shining" also has mysteries stacked on top of mysteries – both in its story and from its creation – that make it live on like very few other horror films (a new documentary, "Room 237," has even attempted to unravel the multiple theories and conspiracies embedded in the project).
Of course, Warner Bros. didn't feel like leaving greatness alone. Last summer, the Los Angeles Times revealed that the studio was "quietly exploring" the prospects of a prequel to "The Shining" that would likely answer all of the film's fascinating mysteries and weird moments in a complete misunderstanding of what makes "The Shining" brilliant. Hint: It's not explaining things. Hopefully, this particularly inane prequel idea will make like Jack Torrance and die before it can mindlessly take a bloody axe to something unique and special.
I can't agree with Muller more -- hopefully this idea will die! Almost like: "Shhh -- Nobody even talk about it, maybe Warner Brothers will forget."
You really can't talk about prequels/sequels of books the same way you talk about the prequels/sequels of movies.
ReplyDeleteThis is Stephen King we are talking about, so far every bold move he made was a real success: The Dark Tower, The Wind Through the Keyhole, even 11/22/63!
Seriously, I want to read everything he wants to write.
Besides, what is REALLY dumb is to complain before having actually read the thing. You could be surprides ;)
The prequel being discussed is a movie, Martini. No complaining about reading Stephen King at this blog.
ReplyDeleteI'd watch it either way, because I'm a King completist in that regard, but I would say that a prequel based on "Before the Play" MIGHT have a shot at being decent.
ReplyDeleteI still say that Kubrick's estate will prevent it from happening, though.
I hope this never comes to pass.
ReplyDeleteWhether a sequel or prequel is feasible or not is, as I've said before, dependent on the nature and basic make up of a story and it's elements, especially whether they go to make up a stand alone or serial story.
ReplyDeleteIn that sense i believe you can talk about sequels to books in the same way as movies.
By the way Reverend, it's funny you mention Exorcist the Beginning. I don't know if this'll be a consolation or not, but it's a fact that the film was ripped off "another" Exorcist prequel directed by Paul Schrader, called "Dominion".
The surprising thing about the Schrader prequel is how it's sort of halfway decent, yet I think the reason for that is it's being more like a remake than a sequel. The film once more put me in mind of those American International horror movies except with a more serious tone, slightly higher budget and no schlock.
Don't know if that means anything or not.
ChrisC