HHN 27 Speculation

[criticalanalysis]

17 minutes ago, RevFreako said:

Cooooooooooosigned

 

Nice, but at least I'm right.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, criticalanalysis said:

 

Nice, but at least I'm right.

No, you have opinions. There's no right or wrong w/r/t opinions, which is what makes your attitude even worse in this regard.

[Itsjosie]

2 hours ago, RevFreako said:

No, you have opinions. There's no right or wrong w/r/t opinions, which is what makes your attitude even worse in this regard.

 Seems like they made their peace back on page 14 if you'd like to go back and read through that.

Critical is a person with opinions just like you and me. And maybe we should talk about how SWEET a catacombs house would be instead of fighting about who wears an ass as a hat and who doesn't. 

 

but that's just my opinion...

[OhHaiInternet95]

^I didn't get to experience Catacombs, but given that I loved TotA, I reckon it'd be up my alley.

 

With The Shining, while I hope it wouldn't be the whole maze, I'd love for part of it to be somewhat abstract, specifically on Jack's inner turmoils--think of a hallway with "ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JACK A DULL BOY" projected everywhere (including misspellings) with the smell of alcohol pumped in, you can even have the sound of a baby crying (the night Jack broke Danny's arm--I know it wasn't shown in the Kubrick movie buuuut it was mentioned and like I said, abstract).

 

Throw in a misty room of shower curtains the deformed old lady stalking you, a mirror trick scare with the twins, the obligatory catch phrase (do I need to say?) and the obvious hedge maze finale in a building kept at a cool temperature and wind blowing, and you'd have one heck of a house, IMO.

 

Thoughts?

Edited April 1, 2017 by OhHaiInternet95

[Ringwraith]

1 hour ago, OhHaiInternet95 said:

^I didn't get to experience Catacombs, but given that I loved TotA, I reckon it'd be up my alley.

 

With The Shining, while I hope it wouldn't be the whole maze, I'd love for part of it to be somewhat abstract, specifically on Jack's inner turmoils--think of a hallway with "ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JACK A DULL BOY" projected everywhere (including misspellings) with the smell of alcohol pumped in, you can even have the sound of a baby crying (the night Jack broke Danny's arm--I know it wasn't shown in the Kubrick movie buuuut it was mentioned and like I said, abstract).

 

Throw in a misty room of shower curtains the deformed old lady stalking you, a mirror trick scare with the twins, the obligatory catch phrase (do I need to say?) and the obvious hedge maze finale in a building kept at a cool temperature and wind blowing, and you'd have one heck of a house, IMO.

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm sure Aiello will give this the same treatment as the Exorcist house, since it's technically all one location. Because it's more of a mind-f*** he'll be able to play with it more. Also having the two little girls staring at you from the hallway, would be terrifying. Although it would have to either be on the sides of the room you're walking through, or an extended area in front of you where you can't walk any further and must turn before they come at you from down the hallway.

[Dr. Jimmy]

 

[Dr. Jimmy]

 

 

[Itsjosie]

13 hours ago, OhHaiInternet95 said:

^I didn't get to experience Catacombs, but given that I loved TotA, I reckon it'd be up my alley.

 

With The Shining, while I hope it wouldn't be the whole maze, I'd love for part of it to be somewhat abstract, specifically on Jack's inner turmoils--think of a hallway with "ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JACK A DULL BOY" projected everywhere (including misspellings) with the smell of alcohol pumped in, you can even have the sound of a baby crying (the night Jack broke Danny's arm--I know it wasn't shown in the Kubrick movie buuuut it was mentioned and like I said, abstract).

 

Throw in a misty room of shower curtains the deformed old lady stalking you, a mirror trick scare with the twins, the obligatory catch phrase (do I need to say?) and the obvious hedge maze finale in a building kept at a cool temperature and wind blowing, and you'd have one heck of a house, IMO.

 

Thoughts?

Well... when you put it that way. That's a house I can get behind!  Solid Ideas all around! The only problem is, that still seems like a pretty short maze. It'll be interesting to see how they beef it up a bit

[OhHaiInternet95]

^Well yeah, I was just giving the highlights of my hypothetical Shining maze.

[hhnfan95]

On 3/31/2017 at 10:54 AM, Grime said:

 

I have to ask, what makes you think so?

I did some research and stumbled upon an HHN Creative Team member's social media page and in their bio they had this quote:

"Bringing out the designs to scare you during HHN... then it hush hush dont say a word HHN27 killed the mocking bird."

 

Later I saw that someone asked this person if an icon was coming to the event. You would imagine the response would be "can't say", BUT this person said (and I quote), "We shall 'si'  "

 

That's my reasoning behind why I think we'll be seeing Mr. Albert Caine (weird how we have the same last name lol) at this year's event!  I personally would love to see the Usher return (also weird that we share the same first name lol). Sadly my middle name isn't HHN related  (Thomas).

[Badge]

It's quite possible they might dedicate each of the next 3 years to each of the other 3 "main" icons to get them back in the spotlight before the big 30th anniversary where we might, hopefully, get another big stage show like HHN 16. I don't consider Storyteller a "main" Icon that could hold the spotlight for the year (especially with the merch) so I could see them putting Storyteller and Director in the same year. 

 

Even if they don't go this route, I don't see them going without an Icon for a while. Marketing tried to do away with it, but it just doesn't work. You need that "thing" to tie everything together and also to drive merch sales. I know my first year didn't have an Icon and I hated all the merch because it was just so generic. With the Icon shirts, mugs, pins, cards, your unifying everything and making things unique that stick out. 

[mystiquephreeq]

The fact that speculation on a Shining house always references limited material and/or needing the same treatment as The Exorcist highlights how subpar the Kubrik movie is compared to the book. 

 

There's absolutely no need to go the "mindf***" or Exorcist route with the Shining. There's plenty of material if your are willing to forget the hatchet job Kubrik did to a wonderful novel. 

 

Wasps, croquet mallets, the boiler room, hedge animals, the masquerade with all of its references to The Masque of Red Death, fire hoses...

 

It's been sometime since I've read The Shining, but the movie can't stand next to the book when it comes to house material. I'd rather see the old fashioned grated elevator than Kubrik's version that spewed blood. I'd rather be hounded through a twisting maze of corridors pursued by the endless thunder of the croquet mallet, then be subjected to "Heeeere's Johnny!". Hedge lions pouncing are far more intimidating than a hedge maze.  Especially, if they are done in strobe lights to simulate the moving without moving mentioned in the book. 

 

There's plenty of material for a house. You just have to go to the real source.  

[OhHaiInternet95]

^Wowzers, I don't necessarily agree or disagree (I like both the book and Kubrick version), but that's a rare opinion. Though, a reason I suggested some abstract portions was because of how the book explores Jack's troubles.

It's funny and frustrating how there's so many great scenes from the movie and book that don't appear in the other. I suppose they can incorporate both, though obviously they'll use the film as the base. How would they do the wasps? The hedge lions would be really hard to pull off, even with strobes.

Edited April 3, 2017 by OhHaiInternet95

[mystiquephreeq]

58 minutes ago, OhHaiInternet95 said:

^Wowzers, I don't necessarily agree or disagree (I like both the book and Kubrick version), but that's a rare opinion. Though, a reason I suggested some abstract portions was because of how the book explores Jack's troubles.

It's funny and frustrating how there's so many great scenes from the movie and book that don't appear in the other. I suppose they can incorporate both, though obviously they'll use the film as the base. How would they do the wasps? The hedge lions would be really hard to pull off, even with strobes.

 

They did a room full of scarabs in one of the mummy houses. Simulating wasps in a room wouldn't be difficult. Both simply rely upon appropriate sounds and some crunchy floor material.

 

I think the xenomorphs and the wolf from AWIL are excellent examples of how one could successful pull of hedge lions. 

 

My opinion is probably rare for those who are not King fanatics. I'm sure hunnylvr will whole-heartedly agree with me. 

 

I saw the movie before I read the book. My feelings toward the movie don't stem from a book before movie perspective, but a feeling of being cheated by the movie when I finally read the book. The books imagery and handling of Jack's downward spiral is far superior. The influence of the hotel is in greater evidence. The portrayals of Danny and Wendy in the movie fundamentally alter the characters. Kubrik's interpretation places emphasis on insanity. It doesn't walk the line of mental instability caused and influenced by the hotel. The Overlook is the antagonist of the Shining. Not Jack Torrance.

[JDW]

10 hours ago, mystiquephreeq said:

There's absolutely no need to go the "mindf***" or Exorcist route with the Shining. There's plenty of material if your are willing to forget the hatchet job Kubrik did to a wonderful novel. 

9 hours ago, OhHaiInternet95 said:

but that's a rare opinion.

 

 

3

Rare indeed. I saw the meandering trainwreck that was Stephen King's remake of the Shining. Don't get me wrong, The shining Novel was amazing but, as is, it just didn't translate well to a movie. (Like most of his stories). IMHO Kubrick and Jack made that IP. 

[hunnylvr]

10 hours ago, mystiquephreeq said:

 

They did a room full of scarabs in one of the mummy houses. Simulating wasps in a room wouldn't be difficult. Both simply rely upon appropriate sounds and some crunchy floor material.

 

I think the xenomorphs and the wolf from AWIL are excellent examples of how one could successful pull of hedge lions. 

 

My opinion is probably rare for those who are not King fanatics. I'm sure hunnylvr will whole-heartedly agree with me. 

 

I saw the movie before I read the book. My feelings toward the movie don't stem from a book before movie perspective, but a feeling of being cheated by the movie when I finally read the book. The books imagery and handling of Jack's downward spiral is far superior. The influence of the hotel is in greater evidence. The portrayals of Danny and Wendy in the movie fundamentally alter the characters. Kubrik's interpretation places emphasis on insanity. It doesn't walk the line of mental instability caused and influenced by the hotel. The Overlook is the antagonist of the Shining. Not Jack Torrance.

 

You are correct - I agree with you 100%.  I listen to a lot of books on Audible now because of my commute time.  I have systematically listened to all the King books they have, so it's been much more recently that I "read" The Shining.  You are correct - there is a TON of imagery in the book that could be used that would be quite effective.  The Masquerade for SURE, the hedge animals, Room 217 (and no, it's NOT room 237 as in the movie - Kubrick changed it). and many things about the hotel itself.  I realize people will want some of the iconic scenes from the movie, but that doesn't mean you can't draw from the actual book.  

 

In case anyone cares, here is a site that will tell you the huge differences between book and movie. http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/05/there-are-so-many-differences-between-stephen-kings-the-shining-and-stanley-kubricks-film-5232328/

 

By the way, I have read several interviews with King, and his comment was that alcoholism was actually the driving force behind the insanity.  And yes, the hotel played a big part. So much to work with here that would make a pretty awesome HHN house.

 

Critical, glad you don't take things personally (I knew you wouldn't).  I still think you're 100% wrong, but that's ok. 

[criticalanalysis]

Another speculative idea is that The Caretaker is an icon and was part of The Shining.

[mystiquephreeq]

2 hours ago, hunnylvr said:

 

You are correct - I agree with you 100%.  I listen to a lot of books on Audible now because of my commute time.  I have systematically listened to all the King books they have, so it's been much more recently that I "read" The Shining.  You are correct - there is a TON of imagery in the book that could be used that would be quite effective.  The Masquerade for SURE, the hedge animals, Room 217 (and no, it's NOT room 237 as in the movie - Kubrick changed it). and many things about the hotel itself.  I realize people will want some of the iconic scenes from the movie, but that doesn't mean you can't draw from the actual book.  

 

In case anyone cares, here is a site that will tell you the huge differences between book and movie. http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/05/there-are-so-many-differences-between-stephen-kings-the-shining-and-stanley-kubricks-film-5232328/

 

By the way, I have read several interviews with King, and his comment was that alcoholism was actually the driving force behind the insanity.  And yes, the hotel played a big part. So much to work with here that would make a pretty awesome HHN house.

 

Critical, glad you don't take things personally (I knew you wouldn't).  I still think you're 100% wrong, but that's ok. 

 

I knew you would agree. And while Jack's alcoholism was a driving force, I've always speculated it was also the weakness that gave the Overlook a foothold.

 

It's one of the things about the movie that disappoints me the most. It's insulated and isolated from the rest of King's work. Toward the end, the phrasings of Jack's thoughts and speech remind me of Tak. Was the Overlook actually near or on a Thinny? Was the Overlook actually inhabited by a waisin? The actions of feeding into the weaknesses and fears also reminds me of Pennywise. Al Marsh let's IT in due to his own weaknesses. The same can be said for the Corcorans' stepfather. It's frustrating that the movie removes this potential link to the Macroverse.   

 

There's so much to work with in King's work. While it may be difficult to successfully translate his novels into movies, translating them into houses would be far easier. If we are willing to give up a scene by scene recreation, and instead just walk a similar path as the characters. 

 

One more scene with potential, the tunnel in the playground. While crawling through a tunnel isn't very feasible, simulating that darkness and claustrophobic feeling is. 

[hhnfan95]

On 4/2/2017 at 4:22 PM, Badge said:

It's quite possible they might dedicate each of the next 3 years to each of the other 3 "main" icons to get them back in the spotlight before the big 30th anniversary where we might, hopefully, get another big stage show like HHN 16. I don't consider Storyteller a "main" Icon that could hold the spotlight for the year (especially with the merch) so I could see them putting Storyteller and Director in the same year. 

 

Even if they don't go this route, I don't see them going without an Icon for a while. Marketing tried to do away with it, but it just doesn't work. You need that "thing" to tie everything together and also to drive merch sales. I know my first year didn't have an Icon and I hated all the merch because it was just so generic. With the Icon shirts, mugs, pins, cards, your unifying everything and making things unique that stick out. 

 

If they did decide to join two icons together for an event it would be without a doubt, the Director & the Usher. Having the Director & the Storyteller together really doesn't make sense. 

[UsherBscary]

On 4/2/2017 at 10:00 PM, mystiquephreeq said:

The fact that speculation on a Shining house always references limited material and/or needing the same treatment as The Exorcist highlights how subpar the Kubrik movie is compared to the book. 

 

There's absolutely no need to go the "mindf***" or Exorcist route with the Shining. There's plenty of material if your are willing to forget the hatchet job Kubrik did to a wonderful novel. 

 

It's been sometime since I've read The Shining, but the movie can't stand next to the book when it comes to house material. I'd rather see the old fashioned grated elevator than Kubrik's version that spewed blood. I'd rather be hounded through a twisting maze of corridors pursued by the endless thunder of the croquet mallet, then be subjected to "Heeeere's Johnny!". Hedge lions pouncing are far more intimidating than a hedge maze.  Especially, if they are done in strobe lights to simulate the moving without moving mentioned in the book. 

 

 

I agree completely, but at the end of the day I think the question will boil down to marketability.   Your average joe probably doesnt even know the shining was a book lol.  Universal has shown over the past few years that they are prioritizing broad appeal more than ever.  While a maze based on the novel would be amazing, 80% of the audience would exit the sound stage scratching their heads wondering where the "here's Johhny" guy went.  Unfortunately I think only the most recognizable iterations of an IP will be adopted

[Dr. Jimmy]

On 4/1/2017 at 9:32 PM, hhnfan95 said:

I did some research and stumbled upon an HHN Creative Team member's social media page and in their bio they had this quote:

"Bringing out the designs to scare you during HHN... then it hush hush dont say a word HHN27 killed the mocking bird."

 

Later I saw that someone asked this person if an icon was coming to the event. You would imagine the response would be "can't say", BUT this person said (and I quote), "We shall 'si'  "

 

That's my reasoning behind why I think we'll be seeing Mr. Albert Caine (weird how we have the same last name lol) at this year's event!  I personally would love to see the Usher return (also weird that we share the same first name lol). Sadly my middle name isn't HHN related  (Thomas).

 

"we shall "si".

 

hmmm, was this creative team member a person who might speak Spanish? If so maybe they weren't saying "we shall see" but "we shall yes!"

[mystiquephreeq]

33 minutes ago, Dr. Jimmy said:

"we shall "si".

 

hmmm, was this creative team member a person who might speak Spanish? If so maybe they weren't saying "we shall see" but "we shall yes!"

 For some reason it took this post to register the hush, hush part of the initial post. 

 

Hush little baby, don't say a word

Mama's gonna buy you a mockingbird

 

Why the nursery rhyme/lullaby?

 

If it is related to the potentiality of an icon, then I would have to say the icon is female. If it's a past icon, only one works: Elsa Strict. 

 

But...

 

If it's the trend of a past character standing alone, then Cindy fits. 

 

 

[criticalanalysis]

Please don't have a human-female icon. Literally not scary.

[b-wolf95]

1 minute ago, criticalanalysis said:

Please don't have a human-female icon. Literally not scary.

 

...Do you want Tumblr to come try to get us shut down?

[Grits0808]

If I remember correctly, the caretaker sings that rhyme in the HHN Sweet 16 Video that the Director made. 

 

Maybe the Icon is The Caretaker and/or Cindy?