Stanley Kubric How he showed the world he faked the moon landings in "The Shining"

NO!

The movie followed the book pretty close and was an accurate representation of Kings novel.

^ Exactly.

A11 work and no play make Jack a dull boy.

I always thought Dannys Apollo 11 sweater was symbolic. Kubrick was a genius.

Response by Stephen King

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[34] and is the only adaptation of his novels that he could "remember hating".[35] Notably, before this King often said he did not care about the film adaptations of his novels.[36]

King thought that his novel's important themes, such as the disintegration of the family and the dangers of alcoholism, were ignored. King has admitted he was suffering from alcoholism at the time he wrote the novel, and as such there was an element of autobiography in the story. King especially viewed the casting of Nicholson as a mistake and as being too early a tip-off to the audience that the character Jack would eventually go mad (due to Nicholson's identification with the character of McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). King had suggested that a more “everyman”-like actor such as Jon Voight or Michael Moriarty play the role, so that Jack's subsequent descent into madness would be more unnerving.[36]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

op is not the only one bringing this up - there is much around the net about this subject - if you want to find it - it's there - very interesting

Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Faked the Moon Landings

[link to www.redicecreations.com]

Could be, full metal jacket was supposed to be an anti war movie.

I thought it was a movie about a writer who goes crazy baby sitting a hotel over the winter? Could be wrong, haven't watched it in a long time.

Great video

All I can say is wow... Must see

You're very wrong. Watch Kubrick's Odyssy. The movie was close to the novel except for some very key points that are undeniable.

Simply Amazing, I followed this video and while speculative in some instances, it has a genuine feeling of relevancy and could be conceived as with merit based on Kubrick's alledged relationship with the American Government and their approach to him in asking to assist with their Mission to the Moon...I wonder if Stephen King put his own stamp of approval on the variations of his novel and new of his motives before Stanley put it on cellulloid ...

All I can say is......Look at 2001 A space oddesy. (the planetary alignments)

You people are grasping as straws that do not exist.

BTW I highly recommend you check out all of Kubrick's films as they are a work of art.


Kubrick made most of my favorite films followed by Ridley Scott, followed by George Lucas.

These 3 directors = GENIUS!

If you dont enjoy this, you dont deserve to be on GLP

EXCELLENT POST.

Thanks.

The reason I find the theory plausible is because the movie was so horribly, unwatchably bad that there HAS to be some ulterior motive for Kubrick to have made the film.

Though that's pretty much how I feel about all of Kubrick's films.

I can't say I thought much of the book either, but I find King's work to be that of an adolescent mind caught in an old man's body.

@ beginning - Dick Halloran, from FL (Nasa?) is walking over some squares (masons).

@ .23 - Notice the view down the hallway, there is one illuminated chandalier.

@ .55 - Check the symbol on the floor in front of Mr. Halloran

@ the time of the killing of Halloran - He passes over the 'templar cross' and in between the two red pillars only to get axed in the chest by Jack.

[link to collider.com]

(July 4th Gold Ball room that could house say a committe of 300, in the year 1921)

So what happened around that time?

Creation of Fed Reserve, but I personally think it is the creation of the CFR. (Council on foreign relations)

Lol you didn't even watch the video before commenting...

Stephen king did not like the movie, the movie has many differences from the book that King was mot happy with in fact he has been quoted saying he "hated it."

Take a look at the facts before you assume.

Good video btw seen it before and its convincing.

You sound like a Michael Bay fan.



[link to www.youtube.com]

is this the only site where people back up claims with fucking wikipedia and youtube? lol

Oh christ.

I've only knowingly seen one Bay movie (Transformers) and it was a steaming pile of dog poo. I'll have to look up his other work to find out if I've seen any of them.

I've seen most of Kubrick's films, and I haven't actually liked any of them. My reactions range from boredom and indifference to being outright offended.

blew my mind, thanks OP

How do can this be explained away?

Really? Seriously!

Mind blowing is the right term for it.

Speaking of, Read all the responses to someone elses post on food. I reply and go into the theories of food replicators and food conspiracy....

Thread: How do groceries get so much perfect food?

Jake, Jacob, Jack....and Maleficent......

Cobb, up, down, Metaphor....are you not awake yet?

I'm really upset that I just watched your video. That movie was scary enough the first time around.