So we're reading a lot about the possibility of a sequel to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, something that Warner Bros are said to be developing. Based on the book by Stephen King, The Shining has gone down in movie history as one of (if not the) greatest horror movies of all time, appearing on almost every best-of list from here to Timbuktu.

As with all greatness, it's often best not to guild the lily, to leave well enough alone and, though this will never be the case in Hollywood, not just squeeze something entirely dry for the sake of a few million shillings. Initially, like King himself, many of you may balk at the idea. Though when we tell you that The Walking Dead's producer/writer Glen Mazarra is in line to write it, you may be more intrigued. And knowing that King has penned a sequel himself will change things, suggesting that there's bound to be a good story in there somewhere. Whether it'll make the transition to the big screen with the same success as the original, is another question. (It's called Doctor Sleep and will be released this September, FYI.) On top of that, we're unsure whether the movie sequel would draw from the original book alone, or from the forthcoming book sequel too. Many questions indeed.

There's an issue at hand here surrounding the rights to a section of the story (detailing the history of the hotel) that was eliminated from King's original novel. Basically, nobody's really sure who owns what, so that could hamper the development. Here's what Stephen King had to say when asked by Entertainment Weekly: There's a real question about whether or not they have the rights to 'Before the Play,' which was the prologue cut from the book - because the epilogue to the book was called 'After the Play.' So they were bookends, and there was really scary stuff in that prologue that wouldn't make a bad movie. Am I eager to see that happen? No I am not. And there's some real question about what rights Warner Bros. does still have. The Shining is such an old book now that the copyright comes back to me. Arguably, the film rights lapse - so we'll see. We're looking into that.

So why then, if King thinks there's perfect movie fodder in the prologue, does he not want to see it happen?

What do you think?