<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: &#8216;The Shining&#8217; Sequel &#8216;Doctor Sleep&#8217; Moves Forward As Director Hired	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://staging2.theplaylist.net/shining-sequel-doctor-sleep-director-20180126/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://staging2.theplaylist.net/shining-sequel-doctor-sleep-director-20180126/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2018 20:58:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: LA2000		</title>
		<link>https://staging2.theplaylist.net/shining-sequel-doctor-sleep-director-20180126/#comment-158116</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LA2000]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2018 20:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theplaylist.net/?p=380112#comment-158116</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Cuaron was probably right to turn it down. You really can&#039;t win by taking on a project like this. The legacy of &quot;The Shining&quot; has diverged onto two distinct paths: the Kubrick film and the King book. Which path should Flanagan follow? Arguably, current audiences know the story best from the film and would be most interested in visiting a new iteration of the world created by Kubrick...but then Flanagan opens himself up to charges of producing a pale copy of a genius work. And if the film has its own voice, it won&#039;t really be a sequel that satisfies fans of the Kubrick work. 

As good as Flanagan can be at ratcheting up the suspense, he has never demonstrated anything close to the pervasive, hypnotic, whisper of dread that was the signature of the original film. There are, in my opinion, only three directors that come to mind that could potentially make a worthy sequel to the origina]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cuaron was probably right to turn it down. You really can&#8217;t win by taking on a project like this. The legacy of &#8220;The Shining&#8221; has diverged onto two distinct paths: the Kubrick film and the King book. Which path should Flanagan follow? Arguably, current audiences know the story best from the film and would be most interested in visiting a new iteration of the world created by Kubrick&#8230;but then Flanagan opens himself up to charges of producing a pale copy of a genius work. And if the film has its own voice, it won&#8217;t really be a sequel that satisfies fans of the Kubrick work. </p>
<p>As good as Flanagan can be at ratcheting up the suspense, he has never demonstrated anything close to the pervasive, hypnotic, whisper of dread that was the signature of the original film. There are, in my opinion, only three directors that come to mind that could potentially make a worthy sequel to the origina</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
