...went nuts and tried to kill his family and failed.
Why wasn't it shut down after Delbert Grady succeeded in killing his family?
Did they think it was a fluke when it happened the first time?
Or maybe it just went out of business, seeing that it's in the middle of nowhere and only open a few months out of the year.
Seriously, how could an isolated place with such a limited season even hope to break even?
I think it is a combination of reasons.
Like you said, it was isolated and couldn't be open all year around.
To make matters worse, the mounting negative "incidents" at the overlook would take a toll on its reputation.
It would be MUCH harder to find a winter caretaker as well and insurance liabilities would become prohibitive.
So I would say that it would be a combination of circumstances that would take its toll.
Kubrick's Overlook was a stunning looking building. Its not really like the one that Steven King envisioned.
In the book it's mentioned that in its long existence, the hotel had never turned a profit until the year before Jack arrived. Perhaps a second murderous caretaker, along with the fire and other damage, was reason enough to shut it down for good rather than try to rebuild?
shareOnly thing is the hotel looks set up the way it did when Jack was caretaker. The typewriter is out, the axe is laying around, etc.
shareProbably, they already spoke of keeping alcohol away because of insurance costs. Now that it seems repetitive they might have trouble getting insured during the winter months because of potential lawsuits.
shareNo, keeping beer would at least placate the caretaker. As Homer said, "no beer and no TV make Homer something something" "Go crazy?" "DON'T MIND IF I DO!!!"
I rest my case.
[deleted]
What are you talking about? The Overlook was destroyed, burnt to the ground
shareOnly in the book and miniseries. In the Kubrick film version it did not burn.
shareBut is this movie a sequel of Kubrick's version? Or is a book adaptation?
shareActually, while the novel Dr. Sleep was only a sequel to the original King book, the movie Dr. Sleep is supposed to be a sequel to both the novel and the Kubrick movie. The survival of and the look of the hotel is drawn directly from the movie.
shareOn imdb they explain that they had to convince King that since so many people were familiar with the film adaptation of The Shining the novel of Dr. Sleep should be adapted as a sequel to the film as well.
shareSee this is where the confusion was in terms of marketing. They really tried to make it seem like a sequel and marketing it that way but...having King's seal meant that there was obviously going to be a "compromise", which meant that lots of the subtle imagery and messaging in Kubrick's version would just get lost in this sequel. I guess they were trying to follow the Kubrick movie somewhat loosely based on the subtleties it's become popular for...but they had no choice but give the movie a King style ending(ex: Halloran is dead and consults Danny from time to time, the hotel is out of business but still standing structurally, but they need to pacify King and it HAS to be destroyed in the end and Danny HAS to be sacrificed, so that's why we get that ending). I think Mike Flanagan tried to have it both ways, but there are things in this movie that desperately try to tie in both the King novel and the Kubrick movie and tbh I don't think it really works.
The best answer is it's more of a sequel to the 97 Mini-series, with some Kubrick references sprinkled in here and there.
> Did they think it was a fluke when it happened the first time?
Um... yes?