Was "THE SHINING" Stanley Kubrick's Confession to having faked the moon landing?, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 05:32 AM by Lillydale

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Um, it was originally a story by Steven King as was mentioned above. How do you get somehow it was a confession?

There is a reason Stephen King later remade "The Shining" for television. He was very unhappy with how different Kubrick's movie was from the original text.

I am not saying this was a confession but it is an interesting read and the people dismissing it because it was a Stephen King story have not bothered to read it or do any research on Stephen King.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 12:58 PM by fanthorpe

I think that Jay Weidner makes a compelling argument. Have the people who have dismissed it read about both The Shining and 2001 if either.

And of course it is a form of conjecture as the information has not been officially disclosed. That makes no odds as to whether or not it happened.

Nevertheless, wherever one's opinions lie, it is an interesting read and a great thread, star and flag!

[edit on 11-10-2009 by fanthorpe]

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 01:17 PM by zeevar

Oh my god...smashing the door down with an was such a obvious give away, how could I have not seen it before...and Capricorn one was about pearl harbour?

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:07 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by Lillydale

Yea, remake fever is unknown in Hollywood.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:14 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Lillydale

Yea, remake fever is unknown in Hollywood.

Just like ignorant things are rampant on ATS?

I think it is pretty obvious that Hollywood has forgotten how to come up with a new idea but if you would bother to research any of the crap you are commenting all over, you would see what I am talking about. Hollywood had nothing to do with it. Stephen King remade the movie specifically because he truly hated how much Kubrick had changed it. It was much like when he sued to get his name off of "The Lawnmower Man."

Look, Your snarky little dig must have really made you proud. I certainly hope you feel good about yourself for shunning the idea of reading any of the stuff you are espousing your ignorant opinion about. I guess you read "It" in high school and think you are an expert but your comments prove otherwise.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:22 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by Lillydale

Ah. I love the illogical premise you infer oh raging one. I would argue that your one of the more ignorant things running rampit with your constant seeking for conflict in which you can self rightously declare yourself better than all who dare argue. But, back to the subject at hand. Because Mr King was dissatisified with Kubrik's version that must mean the premise of the thread MUST be true?

A does not equal B I hate to tell you.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:27 PM by BaronVonGodzilla

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Semantics and deliberate communication hiccups are the biggest problem we have here at ATS, something we're all guilty of.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:28 PM by Lillydale

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Actually if you would read my original post, I clearly stated that it did not mean this theory was true or that I believed it. I just thought it was an interesting additive. My first thought was that it was King's idea so Kubrick could not have molded it so much but then I remembered the conflict and how unhappy king was. More than enough things were changed that he said it no longer resembled his novel as he knew it. I am really sorry to tell you that calling me ignorant must be fun when you do nothing to actually show me being ignorant. I am also really sorry that I did not claim that because King hated the first movie, this must be true. If you are going to wander around being obnoxious, you may want to read the posts you are responding to so that you do not say such pointless ignorant things. Thanks for showing me how correct me assessment was.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:35 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by Lillydale

Nor did I claim you claimed he hated it. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. Dissatification is not hate. Which is the word I used. Anxiously awaiting the next self rightous distortion.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:38 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Lillydale

Nor did I claim you claimed he hated it. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. Dissatification is not hate. Which is the word I used. Anxiously awaiting the next self rightous distortion.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Is that where you run when cornered? I said "hate" not you. Get over yourself. It would have been nice if you could have just been silent or even admitted you were wrong but instead you accuse me of putting words in your mouth when I clearly did not? Whatever you need to do to sleep at night. This is really not that important to me. Call it whatever you like and say whatever uninformed nonsense about the book you want. I will no stop you from making yourself look stupid. Sorry you need to go to so much trouble to attack me.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:46 PM by fanthorpe

Another thread with potential, successfully derailed!

Oh well.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:52 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by fanthorpe

Another thread with potential, successfully derailed!

Oh well.

It is only successfully derailed if no one has anything on topic to add. I am pretty sure that my posts do not prevent anyone from addressing the topic at hand. I found it interesting and was reading along but I think it has kind of been covered.

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 08:05 PM by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by fanthorpe

Another thread with potential, successfully derailed!

Oh well.

It is only successfully derailed if no one has anything on topic to add. I am pretty sure that my posts do not prevent anyone from addressing the topic at hand. I found it interesting and was reading along but I think it has kind of been covered.

Well let's do an oblique turn and discuss, if worthwhile, the kid in the hallway wearing the sweater with APOLLO on it. He rises from the floor and Jay says it has a connection to the actual (or not!) rising of APOLLO 11. What do you see in this inclusion by Kubrick?

reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 08:11 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Well let's do an oblique turn and discuss, if worthwhile, the kid in the hallway wearing the sweater with APOLLO on it. He rises from the floor and Jay says it has a connection to the actual (or not!) rising of APOLLO 11. What do you see in this inclusion by Kubrick?

I really do not know. I do however find it very interesting. This is a detail that was not in the book so Kubrick could go anywhere he wanted with what was on the shirt. Then he made the effort to change the room number for what reason? I really do not know but I found the whole thing intriguing. I would not want to make any conclusions. It really kind of reminds me of the zapruder film showing how it was cut and paste edited. I am not sure what I think about it but there was enough there to be interesting. Make sense?

I know that directors, producers, and the studio all like to change things because they feel it would be better. Stanley had more control than say Michael Bay does now, so he did have a looooot of say in his movie. I also know that directors like him have big egos and feel the need to put their own spin on things. Who knows. I am just really interested in the amount of things that have been pointed at as clues. If it was just one or two, I would have blown it off but it is a really good little read.

[edit on 10/11/09 by Lillydale]

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 06:16 AM by fanthorpe

Here is a link to a website with a really in depth look at some of the symbolism in The Shining.

jonnys53.blogspot.com...

Interesting to note that he believes that the sweater doesn't say Apollo 11, I strongly disagree with that notion.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:39 AM by Lannock

Originally posted by Osiris1953
No there isn't any confession that I could see from the link provided. Just a lot of conjecture, and truth stretching. If I threw a pile of sticks on the floor, someone would find some symbology in them. That's all this is. Looking for something in nothing in order to validate a belief that can not effectively be proven.

The only problem here is that this is an entire movie we're talking about. It's the same as throwing a pile of sticks on the ground 6 times and it spells out A P O L L O. Possibly chance but extremely unlikely.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:07 AM by quackers

An interesting read, well what I got. I got to page 3 of the 2nd link and got a message that the site's account had been disabled.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 09:58 AM by fanthorpe

Well I never.

He knows too much lol!

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 12:53 AM by Skeptical Ed

The bottom line after everything is said and done is: Did Kubrick really film a movie that earthlings were later fed as actual lunar footage? For one, I don't accept what is proposed but it sure would make a great campfire yarn. Or an interesting thread!

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 06:08 PM by phiktion

Why do people reply before actually reading through the OP's topic and the links provided.

Also there is a French mockumentary out there called Dark Side of the Moon

en.wikipedia.org...

I'll add the video to my YouTube page later, but in it they talk about Kubrick faking the moon landings as well.

Plot summary The tone of the "documentary" begins with low key revelations of NASA working closely with Hollywood at the time of the Moon landings. Over the course of the tale, Karel postulates that not only did Kubrick help the USA fake the moon landings but that he was eventually killed by the CIA to cover up the truth. First hand testimony backing these claims come from Rumsfeld and Dr. Kissinger seems to lend credence to the story. It is finally revealed that this is a mockumentary as the end credits roll over a montage of blooper reels, with the main participants laughing over the absurdity of their lines or questioning if particular ones would give the joke away too soon. Besides being a comedic documentary, it is also an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality. In a 2004 interview, the director was asked why he would elect to make a film "closer to a comedy than a serious film"; Karel replied that in the wake of having made serious documentaries, the objective was "de faire un film drôle" (to make a funny film).[1] Australian broadcaster SBS television aired the film on April 1 as an April fools' joke, and again on 17 November 2008 as part of Kubrick week. It was aired again on 27 July 2009, perhaps to coincide with the anniversary of the moon landing. Several of the fictitious interviewees, such as Dave Bowman and Jack Torrance, are named after characters from movies directed by Stanley Kubrick. There are also references to other characters; Eve Kendall and George Kaplan, each featured in the documentary, are characters in Hitchcock's North by Northwest. Not to forget Ambrose Chapel, also a Hitchcock 'character', better to say 'location'. The soundtrack also includes the song "The American Dream" from Barry Levinson's Wag the Dog, a fiction feature about a secretly government-commissioned Hollywood production of a fake war.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by phiktion]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^