Many of you probably know there are 3 different cuts of this masterpiece. The most talked-about is the original 146 minutes long cut which included a final scene in a Colorado hospital where Danny and Wendy meet an eerie Ullman who wants to make them believe they were victims of hallucinations.

Kubrick had the film released in that version for about 2 weeks or even less, I don't remember right now Then he cut the scene out.

The most notable differences that are still permanent are those which can be found in the international cut of the film, the one I have always watched. I finally happened on the site that shows visual/dialogue differences between the international cut and the US one. I was impressed when I found out two film stills I never had my eye on (despite the countless times I've seen The Shining), when I received as Christmas gift the Alison Castle massive  book "The Stanley Kubrick Files", published by Taschen. I suggest you to look it up on the internet and buy it if you're a Kubrick trekkie.

The missing shots I'm talking about are 1) skeletons sitting in a dark-blue hall of the hotel 2) Wendy and Danny watching TV in one of the hotel halls on a regular Tv-set. That brought back to my memory the fact that for 24 years I've been watching a different cut from the american one. So I looked on the internet and found this website I was talking about. The problem is that the stills are too small.

Here's the link to the website, where you can also find black and white pictures taken during the shooting of the famous hospital scene.

 http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting/shining/

Here's one:

How many of you have seen both versions or just the US one? Maybe owns it on DVD... It would be a blast if I had the chance to see some large-sized stills from the scenes that were taken out by Kubrick for us Europeans and the rest of the world. I'll trade stills from the European cut of the orgy scene in Eyes wide shut, eheheh. Just joking... And by the way you can watch them here:

http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscuro/vergleiche/eyes.html

 

i was a huge "kubrick trekkie" in college and somehow i never knew about any of this. thanks!

I've seen versions with and without the skeletons in the hallway.

Kubrick's worst film.

I've seen versions with and without the skeletons in the hallway.

Kubrick's worst film.

 you're nuts. lolita put me to sleep, and i'm a big old slut for barry lyndon

I've seen versions with and without the skeletons in the hallway.

Kubrick's worst film.

 you're nuts. lolita put me to sleep, and i'm a big old slut for barry lyndonKubrick became Kubrick, either with Lolita or directly after it, and the four movies that followed it are pretty much untouchable.

Kubrick became Kubrick, either with Lolita or directly after it, and the four movies that followed it are pretty much untouchable.

 well shut my mouth, i've never met a person who agreed with me on that. i stopped bringing it up because i usually get yelled at-- "OMFG what about paths of glory you monster!!" etc.

i think the shining is a good movie though. being the worst kubrick movie is like being the least good beethoven symphony

I just think The Shining has aged poorly, and he was a good film maker that never really made a straight up "bad" movie, but I don't think his approach worked with this movie.

i think it's very well-shot. as usual the camera angles are stunning. but the story, and the usual tour-de-force kubrick soundtrack were missing. so it's kind of...just a decent horror flick.

Okay, maybe my opinion could change through time, but I highly doubt that. Yet, to me there is no WORST in the Kubrick universe. Even a film like Dr. Strangelove , which is my least favorite (exclusing Spartacus, which was practically commissioned to him by Kirk Douglas), is undoubtedly a great thing to watch once in a while.

regarding THE SHINING for starters everyone should admit that Kubrick did a genius work on the adaptation of the very over-rated horror novel by King. I read it, twice precisely and I concluded that it was crap. Kubrick cut out essential and pivotal plot points in the novel to make it essentially different and more vague. Instead of doing that horrible TV movie, King should have thanked Kubrick for doing such great advertisement on his book. Moreover, The Shining is inarguably better than the higher-praised The Exorcist, which seems to be the most liked horror film of history.

Note: I pretty much hate The Exorcist . I find it unintentionally comic and I think those who say "well the scene with the vomiting girl was good, admit it" don't know what makes a film really good. Most films have at least one good scene. The Shining has, like, 90% of its scenes just the right way.

i find the parts of dr. strangelove that aren't funny (roughtly 1/3 of the film) to be excrutiatingly boring, there i said it

I have never laughed during Dr. Strangelove. True story.
It's amusing, yes, but that's all.

I don't think Shining succeeds as a horror movie because it depends on its atonal soundtrack too much.

i laugh at just about everything george c scott says and does in that movie. there's this part were he just randomly slaps his belly while he's on the phone and it always slays me

I have never laughed during Dr. Strangelove. True story.
It's amusing, yes, but that's all.

I don't think Shining succeeds as a horror movie because it depends on its atonal soundtrack too much.

 i think shelly duvall is kind of hot

To appreciate Dr. Strangelove more you have to look at it, not just watch it, you know what I mean? Please re-read my last post because I edited it. Sorry

I have never laughed during Dr. Strangelove. True story.
It's amusing, yes, but that's all.

I don't think Shining succeeds as a horror movie because it depends on its atonal soundtrack too much.

 i think shelly duvall is kind of hotWhen Altman was her director, sure.

I've seen versions with and without the skeletons in the hallway.

Kubrick's worst film.

 you're nuts. lolita put me to sleep, and i'm a big old slut for barry lyndon
 Your meters of evaluation are arguably serious. If you *watch*, and not look at, Kubrick films for adrenaline or laughs, you turned to the wrong director.

I've seen versions with and without the skeletons in the hallway.

Kubrick's worst film.

 you're nuts. lolita put me to sleep, and i'm a big old slut for barry lyndon
 Your meters of evaluation are arguably serious. If you *watch*, and not look at, Kubrick films for adrenaline or laughs, you turned to the wrong director.
If a movie doesn't connect with the person watching it, the subtext won't matter, no matter how brilliant it is.

I've seen versions with and without the skeletons in the hallway.

Kubrick's worst film.

 you're nuts. lolita put me to sleep, and i'm a big old slut for barry lyndon
 Your meters of evaluation are arguably serious. If you *watch*, and not look at, Kubrick films for adrenaline or laughs, you turned to the wrong director.

i don't know what you're talking about.

A. it's ok to expect a story to be told while you're watching a movie. 

B. that's precisely why i dislike lolita, it's completely devoid of kubrik's usual directorial razzle-dazzle.  

I've seen versions with and without the skeletons in the hallway.

Kubrick's worst film.

 you're nuts. lolita put me to sleep, and i'm a big old slut for barry lyndon
 Your meters of evaluation are arguably serious. If you *watch*, and not look at, Kubrick films for adrenaline or laughs, you turned to the wrong director.
If a movie doesn't connect with the person watching it, the subtext won't matter, no matter how brilliant it is.

 Well, that's a good interest and an interesting perspective. It's pretty rare to receive such insightful answers that don't limit themselves at things like "I just hated it and you're just giving a subjective review". I think, for reasons that are still unknown to me, that films have pretty much their own lives no matter what directors, producers, actors, critics and viewers say about it. That's another rare thing happening and films made by Lynch, Kubrick and very few other good film-makers are inarguably great because they put effort and attention to detail and texture in them.

liking that signature

I think, for reasons that are still unknown to me, that films have pretty much their own lives no matter what directors, producers, actors, critics and viewers say about it. That's another rare thing happening and films made by Lynch, Kubrick and very few other good film-makers are inarguably great because they put effort and attention to detail and texture in them.

It's no great mystery, they leave things unexplained and then the intentional fallacy takes over.
That's more true for Lynch than Kubrick though, as he arguably puts less "thought" into his movies.

I think, for reasons that are still unknown to me, that films have pretty much their own lives no matter what directors, producers, actors, critics and viewers say about it. That's another rare thing happening and films made by Lynch, Kubrick and very few other good film-makers are inarguably great because they put effort and attention to detail and texture in them.

It's no great mystery, they leave things unexplained and then the intentional fallacy takes over.
That's more true for Lynch than Kubrick though, as he arguably puts less "thought" into his movies.

 The point I was trying to make is that films, any film, even the most stupid can have a greatness that wasn't thought during its creative process. I developed this theory when sometimes I hear commentaries or watch an interview and realize that the person behind what I thought was pretty much genius is definitely not the image of genius. That's because when we speak for films, we immediately kill them or their reputation. Even us, in this very moment, we are doing a wrong thing. We are talking about it. I know it's difficult not to talk, but we should think of the words we're going to say. That's why people like Lynch are clever. They try not to get involved in interviews and give explanations to stupid answers because they don't want to kill the magic of their film. But, the other main point is that a film can have a magic and nobody noticed that.

 That's because when we speak for films, we immediately kill them or their reputation.

A good movie can take a licking and keep on ticking. They're not dainty flowers.

I don't understand, sorry....

I don't understand, sorry....

You can spoof  a movie in a thousand Scary Movies, and if it was any good in the first place it will still be.