China Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Your raving lunatic conspiracy theory for the day (be sure to read the full text rather than just the bits I quoted below. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Secrets of The Shining Or How Faking the Moon Landings Nearly Cost Stanley Kubrick his Marriage and his Life. By Jay Weidner The Shining is surely Stanley Kubrick's most misunderstood masterpiece. I use the word 'masterpiece' guardedly because I have never really thought that The Shining was a very good film. At the time, in 1980 when I first saw it, I didn't like it at all. The way that Kubrick threw out so much of Stephen King's great source material and replaced it with a lot of things that just didn't seem to make any sense, really bothered me. Hopefully, before I am finished with this essay, the reader will see it is only when Kubrick dramatically alters the script from Stephen King's novel that we can begin to understand what Stanley Kubrick is trying to tell us in his version of The Shining. ... There are two main characters in the film, Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson) and his son Danny (played by Danny Lloyd). It is important to understand here that Jack and Danny are two aspects of Stanley Kubrick himself. Jack is the practical, pragmatic guy who wants to be a great artist. And he is, apparently, willing to do anything to accomplish his goal of being an artist (writer). Jack, like Stanley has black hair, he is idiosyncratic and even smokes the same cigarettes as Stanley (Marlboro). ... The Manager of the Overlook, while interviewing Jack, has an American Eagle right behind his head. It is as if "The Eagle" is the power behind the Manager. Not only is the Eagle the symbol of America but it should be noted that the Lunar Lander of the Apollo 11 mission was called "The Eagle". To the Manager's right on the desk is an American flag. Symbolically the Manager (played by Barry Nelson) is the face of the government of the United States. Jack has cut this deal with the government to be the "caretaker" of the Hotel. The Manager tells Jack that his main job is to prevent the Overlook Hotel (America) from appearing like it is decaying. The Manager reiterates that this is Jack's primary responsibility. ... Mystified by where the ball came from, Danny stands up, and the audience finally sees what the nature of the Project really is about: As Danny stands up, the answer is revealed in an instant. Danny is wearing a sweater with a crudely sewn rocket pictured on the front. On the rocket clearly seen on Danny's sweater are the words: APOLLO 11 The audience watching the film literally sees the launch of Apollo 11, right before their eyes, as Danny rises from the floor. It isn't the real launch of Apollo 11, it is, of course, the symbolic launching of Apollo 11. In other words - it isn't real. ... The real truth is that this movie is really about the deal that Stanley Kubrick made with the Manager of the Overlook Hotel (America). This deal was to get Kubrick to re-create, in other words, to fake, the Apollo 11 Moon landing. Click on the link for the full nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boysetsfire Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Wow haha. That is some crazy stuff right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Now that's some clever **** right there!! lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 The one thing that really confused me about this movie is the ending. the movie is ending and it pans to an old photo from what back in the beginnings of the hotel at some(if i remember) new years party. Jack is in the photo. However, this is the part that confuses me. The photo is so old there is no way that Jack could have been in it. What is the point to this scene?? How can jack be in the photo and still alive today?? Was he never alive to began with?? Is he just a ghost?? explain please?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Wow, he is really reaching here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEREALTOR1 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 "Have you ever watched the movie The Shining"? . . . "Have you ever watched the movie The Shining... on weed"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 The one thing that really confused me about this movie is the ending. the movie is ending and it pans to an old photo from what back in the beginnings of the hotel at some(if i remember) new years party. Jack is in the photo. However, this is the part that confuses me. The photo is so old there is no way that Jack could have been in it. What is the point to this scene?? How can jack be in the photo and still alive today?? Was he never alive to began with?? Is he just a ghost?? explain please?? I've wondered about that scene too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 up the medication :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsonny Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Stephen King has been quoted as saying that although Kubrick made a film with memorable imagery, it was not a good adaptation of his novel[9] and is the only adaptation of his novels that he could "remember hating".[10][11] He thought that his novel's important themes, such as the disintegration of the family and the dangers of alcoholism, were ignored. Kubrick made other changes that King disparaged. King especially viewed the casting of Nicholson as a mistake and a tip-off to the audience (due to Nicholson's identification with the character of McMurphy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest) that the character Jack would eventually go mad. However, the author's animosity toward Kubrick's adaptation has dulled over time. During an interview segment on the Bravo channel, King admitted that the first time he watched Kubrick's adaptation, he found it to be "dreadfully upsetting". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(film) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I've wondered about that scene too. I took that scene to mean that the hotel had assimilated or claimed him as one of its own (victims) and now he's forever a part of its history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I took that scene to mean that the hotel had assimilated or claimed him as one of its own (victims) and now he's forever a part of its history. That's cool but how did he get into a pict that he wouldn't have been alive for. unless you mean the hotel recreated the pict with him in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 That's cool but how did he get into a pict that he wouldn't have been alive for. unless you mean the hotel recreated the pict with him in it. Yeah, that's kind of how I viewed it: the hotel writing its own history and claiming him as a part of it now (maybe the other folks in the photo were contemporaries of Jack's but have also been killed and now are a part of this alumni). Who knows? Sometimes ambiguity works well... The book was better, which is typically the case, but the movie was not half bad. I think where the book did fail is in the images that they included in the movie throughout that literally would make no sense if you hadn't read the novel. At this point, what's amazing to me is how many novels King's had optioned into movies (again, for good and bad). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 It was cool walking around the Timber Lodge (atop Mt. Hood) where that movie was shot. It is a spooky looking/feeling place. Although it would be a great place to stay and ski, and I liked the layout and architecture, I had no desire to stay there. It really didn't have anything to do with the movie, because I didn't actually see the movie until after I skied there. The place just didn't feel right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Rich Fla Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Why do we have to look at something and make it mean some weird inside **** nowadays? Maybe it just was the cool stuff at the time. Get This! Maybe, just maybe, it didn't mean anything............wooooooooooow:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 That's cool but how did he get into a pict that he wouldn't have been alive for. unless you mean the hotel recreated the pict with him in it. I always took it to mean he was reincarnated. The book was better, which is typically the case, but the movie was not half bad. I think where the book did fail is in the images that they included in the movie throughout that literally would make no sense if you hadn't read the novel. At this point, what's amazing to me is how many novels King's had optioned into movies (again, for good and bad). I actually enjoyed the film more and I'm a big Stephen King fan so I know I'm alienating myself when I admit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 It took me less than 2 minutes to poke one hole in the conspiracy detailed here (See below). I still enjoyed the read though... The Timberline Lodge requested Kubrick change the sinister Room 217 of King's novel to 237, so customers would not avoid the real room 217. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(film) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Why do we have to look at something and make it mean some weird inside **** nowadays? Kinda like last week when someone posted "Look at the color of Jon Gruden's tie!! He's sending us a message!!!" :insane: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Wow. Just wow. This guy is really reaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 What is the point to this scene?? How can jack be in the photo and still alive today?? Was he never alive to began with?? Is he just a ghost?? explain please?? Well, if you remember, throughout the movie, he is constantly fighting with what appears to be memories about the place. He seems to have this strange remenisence, especially at the bar & in the ballroom. Grady, the caretaker that he meets in the bathroom, tells him that he's "always been the caretaker here". I take it like this. The Hotel itself was a spiritual being that used Jack & Danny to bring it's evil alive. Jack was the physical embodiment of that evil coming alive & the picture represented that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 with the picture: I've heard it two ways. One is what some you guys are saying, that Jack is actually a reincarnated caretaker of the hotel, so literally the ghosts aren't lying when they say you've always been the caretaker. Another view, and I've heard this one a lot less, is that some of the "parties" Jack attended actually happened and the picture is simply him captured in the moment. I put more stock in the first interpretation. In the film, Jack is constantly experiencing dejavu and says he feels like he's been there before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 and nobody could ever convince him that he is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peeping Wizard Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 up the medication :laugh: Or maybe stop taking it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdoctor Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 That's cool but how did he get into a pict that he wouldn't have been alive for. unless you mean the hotel recreated the pict with him in it. the ghosts were able to manipulate the image. he wasnt there then. he is there now :cool2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 with the picture: I've heard it two ways. One is what some you guys are saying, that Jack is actually a reincarnated caretaker of the hotel, so literally the ghosts aren't lying when they say you've always been the caretaker. Another view, and I've heard this one a lot less, is that some of the "parties" Jack attended actually happened and the picture is simply him captured in the moment.I put more stock in the first interpretation. In the film, Jack is constantly experiencing dejavu and says he feels like he's been there before. Very interesting. However, if that is the case, Kubrik was a dolt for making something so hard to grasp as this plot line. I've always thought that if something like this is so hard to figure out, why do it?? It's interesting none the less, and explains alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 and nobody could ever convince him that he is wrong And that's scarier than anything in The Shining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.