https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/emilia-clarke-eyed-play-dceus-zatanna/
I know this barely qualifies as news but I want to talk about it. Zatanna is one of my favourite comic book characters so this is great, but also really surprising. Zatanna hasn’t really had any solo projects outside of the comics (even then only ever with limited runs) and tends to be used as a member of a team or as a visiting guest hero. I was expecting her to show up as a part of Justice League Dark or maybe as a guest/ recurring role on and Arrow-verse series so it’s quite bold move to jump straight into the feature film. It does seem like WB/DC are more willing to take a chance on some lesser known characters at the moment and I think a smaller, modestly budgeted film could be the way forward. I’m hoping they really lean into the horror elements since she frequently battles monsters and demons.
So a surprising choice for the film treatment but in the right hands this could be great. I shall be watching this unfold with great interest. My guess is that whether it moves forward or not will depend on the success of Birds of Prey next year.
I guess I’m questioning King’s decision to personify the threat. I appreciate its a different threat, but it’s replacing the big bad; note: I haven’t read doctor sleep, so I’m on very slippery ground having the nerve to criticise it. Plus I haven’t read the shining, so Sleep may well follow on perfectly from that novel. I’m guessing they’re fairly different since King hated Kubrick’s movie.
I wonder if Flannegan is trying to keep too many fans (both literary and movie) happy. For me there’s an inconsistency in the trailer between the cinematic perfection of Kubrick’s Overlook homage and the cheesy King vampires.
No doubt I’ll be eating my words having seen it - fingers crossed. And thanks for the recommendations - I’ll try and watch flannegans work.
The thing that irritated me at first with “Doctor Sleep” was that it is completely different from “The Shining”. But then I began to appreciate that King deliberately did not rehash the story for the sequel. Instead he focused on the aftermath for Jack´s son Danny and how he had to live with his past and his “shining”. The idea that others also had that “gift” which felt like a curse was perfectly fine, also the idea that there were people who feed on those psychic powers.
So, no cheesy vampires here at all. Instead, a terrifying cult as a powerful metaphor for the malevolent forces that cling to us because we cannot lose what we are, whether we like it or not.
Thanks, that certainly sounds more encouraging. As a huge fan of Kubrick’s opus I really want this to be great ( as do we all).
It’ll be a disappointment if Danny’s experiences, moreover his dad’s pathology and it’s true origin in the hotel’s past isn’t addressed with some real meat on the bone.
It’d be the safe option to say that Kubrick got the balance of information and suggestion just right, so that chapter should be left closed. But then don’t write or make a sequel! Unless it dares to interrogate the original and provide more information as to the past, then it’s little more than a homage treating its characters like brands to attract readers/viewers; “Here’s that guy from the movie you liked in another adventure…” Who wants a ‘safe’ sequel?
It’s taking risks by providing more info and insight into the characters and their pasts that I’d argue has been the strength of Craig-Bond. He and the team have transformed a 2D brand into a 3D character. That risks marginalising some of the audience, but it doesn’t seem to have effected business.
I hope Flannegan has been equally daring with the material and the Overlook sets are far more than mere homage and branding.
Well, as much as I admire and even enjoy Kubrick´s version of “The Shining”, it is King´s novel which was the origin. And his idea was to ask: what happened to that little boy (burdened with the gruesome experience in the Overlook, the behavior of his dad who in the novel had one last moment of clarity and was not the total nutcase from the start as Kubrick decided to depict him)?
In that regard, “Doctor Sleep” was a true sequel in the sense of a continuation. Not a “and this time another family goes to the Overlook and freaky things happen”-rehash.
But - as far as I read from interviews with Flanagan - the problem with this movie adaptation of “Doctor Sleep” was, of course, that more movie audiences know the film version of “The Shining” than the novel. And the differences create a real problem. If you stick to the sequel novel, movie audiences will be disappointed that the Overlook does not feature as more than ruins (spoiler alert: the hotel burns down in the novel). So, Flanagan decided to use the movie version as the back story, and therefore the finale is set in the hotel.
But still, it will not be “The Shining: Rebirth”. It will be its own thing. And I do love the idea to see the Overlook Hotel through the eyes of the adult Danny, while confronting not only his past but also his present.
As for CraigBond - well, you know that I don’t think he transformed a 2D brand into a 3D character. It still is a 2D brand for me, and that’s perfectly fine. Bond can never be more than that. No tragedy that he has to live through, maybe, in NO TIME TO DIE, can actually change that.
I think he’s already on board, to be honest. Everyone knew that Aykroyd and Hudson would return if asked, so it’s not really news necessarily that they’re back. I think they’ll either wait for a trailer to announce Murray’s return or have some massive press release that dominates the entertainment news of the day/week.
