Why Kubrick Changed the Ending to THE SHINING

a reply to: Revolution9

Too tough to look this up?

Cincinnatus then disbanded his army and returned to his farm, abandoning his control a mere fifteen days after it had been granted to him. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus

The statue depicts Washington, as Cincinnatus, returning his sword to Congress as he had earlier stated, 'I did not defeat George III to become George I.'

"You have often heard him compared to Cincinnatus," the French traveller Jacques-Pierre Brissot de Warville wrote after visiting George Washington at Mount Vernon in 1788. "The comparison is doubtless just. The celebrated General is nothing more at present than a good farmer, constantly occupied in the care of his farm and the improvement of cultivation." Source-ry

With its selection of objects both civilian (the plow and cane) and military (the fasces, sword and uniform), the statue has been interpreted as invoking the imagery and ideal of an Ancient Roman dictator, Cincinnatus, with whom Washington has been compared in his decision to retire from public life following the Revolutionary War. At the time of its commission, Washington had not yet served in the Constitutional Convention, and would not become President of the United States until 1789. Read me.

Since 1856, the name Baphomet has been associated with a "Sabbatic Goat" image drawn by Eliphas Levi which contains binary elements representing the "sum total of the universe" (e.g. male and female, good and evil, etc.). More stuff

We do know the 19th century came after the 18th century, right? How could that statue depict Baphomet if the image from Levi is from decades later? That was rhetorical.

a reply to: Revolution9

Ok...

I'm very grateful for your contribution to my thread. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

But I still I think you might want to ease up a little bit.

And I worship no one, by the way.

However, I think it would be impossible to deny the fact that AM is uniquely qualified to comment on all matters masonic.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Oh yes I remember that thread, great thread.

Kubrick was really a genius and ahead of his time. Maybe you should make a 2001 thread some time

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

If some piece of new data were to surface about 2001 that would cause everyone to rethink its meaning then I would, but as it stands I think 2001 has been well laid out both here and other places on the Internet.

In other news, they just started making more 2001 merchandise again.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Hey, check this out:

Revelation 9:9; …8They had hair like that of women, and teeth like those of lions. 9They also had thoraxes like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the roar of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10They had tails with stingers like scorpions, which had the power to injure people for five months.…

Then check this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Pazuzu is often depicted as a combination of diverse animal and human parts. He has the body of a man, the head of a lion or dog, talons of an eagle, two pairs of wings, and a scorpion's tail. He has his right hand up and left hand down.

Probably just a coicidence...probably...???

Pazuzu is the demon of the southwest wind known for bringing famine during dry seasons, and locusts during rainy seasons. Pazuzu was invoked in apotropaic amulets, which combat the powers of his rival,[1] the malicious goddess Lamashtu, who was believed to cause harm to mother and child during childbirth. Although Pazuzu is, himself, considered to be an evil spirit, he drives and frightens away other evil spirits, therefore protecting humans against plagues and misfortunes.

That makes Pazuzu like a Medusa (Gorgon). There are parallels in Indonesian and pretty much universal Pagan rituals to chase away the evil spirits. Christianity is a kind of sorts. Christ had to be executed in the most gruesome fashion, totally desecrating the alter and it was His own who did the desecrating, not Him obviously. They sacrificed a human where only an animal had been commanded and polluted the alter at a Passover of Passovers with human blood, so the story goes. They committed a hideously Pagan act. These are the behaviors of our ancestors; real horror stories of Pagan sacrifice and our love of horror is a psychological leftover from these times in many ways (check the "slasher genre" - sacrificing the young women and men, too). Refer to Abraham being told that sacrificing the children was not necessary and an animal was put in the place. That was the civilizing factor of Judaism in a pagan world that surrounded it, that was pretty much sacrificing children to gods and demons on a universal basis; the first born! That is where the tradition of first born being God's comes from. Baphomet is a little bit of demon leftover from a world of magic.

Apotropaic magic

Apotropaic magic (from Greek apotrepein "to ward off" from apo- "away" and trepein "to turn") is a type of magic intended to turn away harm or evil influences, as in deflecting misfortune or averting the evil eye. Apotropaic observances may also be practiced out of vague superstition or out of tradition, as in good luck charm (perhaps some token on a charm bracelet), amulets, or gestures such as crossed fingers or knocking on wood. The Greeks made offerings to the averting gods (Ἀποτρόπαιοι θεοί: Apotropaioi Theoi), chthonic deities and heroes who grant safety and deflect evil.[1]

So, are Bobby and crew doing may be nothing more than a bit of Apotropaic Magic; averting the evil eye like Hamsa? Originally, isn't that what Pazuzu was; an evil spirit who could be used to protect humans from all the other evil spirits? I wonder how they beseeched his favour though? I hope it wasn't Kentucky Fried Child? Back then us humans did horrible things to petition the Lords with prayer. Is Baphomet nothing more than an atavism as a kind of good luck charm to some rich folks, who has very dark origins, but was a protector, too; as long as they fed him, lol, but fed him WHAT? I hope Bobby don't feed him like the old days (a joke, well it is a horror thread).

No harm meant about George Washington. When he was doing that pose he was just acting up the hero part and probably encouraged to do it. Back then they didn't know where it all came from like we do now. We have rediscovered a lot of ancient knowledge that the modern religions and politics have not been keen to inform us about; the internet has given us instant access to so much knowledge.

George and his peers were educated that way, by Greek and Roman literature. That even shows in the Senate of the U.S today; just curious patterns. This stuff interests me greatly. I like to see what turns into what through the ages; ripples and reflections, the old in the new. Even that pesky Pazuzu has tricked his way into our consciousness after all these years.

Even the Hebrews had their Death Angel. Angels weren't all nice out in the desert as we know what they did when the djinn "got out of the bag" and went through the camp and what Death Angel did to the Egyptians. To this day Passover and Easter are entwined as Death Angel time and Christ being put on the cross time. Ever noticed that before? I have noticed it and so much more as we shall continue to explore in future episodes of "Revolution9's Revelation Time, here on prime time ATS Grapevine". Death Angel time and it's nearly time this year. Happy Easter eggs!

Angels and demons and all kinds of counter espionage shenanigans in the realm of The Elohim. Just don't feed your kids to em and everything be cool!

Uh oh, my bed is starting to shake live Elvis' legs.

Be seeing you

originally posted by: Revolution9
No harm meant about George Washington. When he was doing that pose he was just acting up the hero part and probably encouraged to do it.

Looks like you didn't read the sources I gave you that you specifically asked for. Greenough, the sculptor, did not have Washington pose for that work, he placed him in that position on his own volition since Washington was already dead and would have had a bit of a rough time posing for the work.

Back then they didn't know where it all came from like we do now.

Of course they did, Greenough used Zeus and Cincinnatus as his inspirations for the form. The inscription reads: "SIMULACRUM ISTUD AD MAGNUM LIBERTATIS EXEMPLUM NEC SINE IPSA DURATURUM HORATIUS GREENOUGH FACIEBAT".

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

Right. King's novels and stories have been botched so many times that I lost track. I remember Cell being awful. Another good King adaptation is Rob Reiner's "Stand by Me". Absolute classic I say.

a reply to: KingofSting

Stand By Me was excellent.

Even though it was really low budget, I enjoyed the TV movie version of The Langoliers.

Has anybody seen the version of The Shining that Stephen King directed?

It sucked... such a shame.

You know King had to make his version of The Shining into a TV movie because Kubrick wouldn't give him back the movie rights (which King had signed away when he authorized Kubrick to make The Shining film).

im sorry if i sound harsh but how is this a conspiracy theory?
if its fictional its not a conspiracy theory
i was expecting you to talk about the kubrick did the moon landing conspiracy theory
but you dint, so?

a reply to: humanoidlord

The reason this fits into General Conspiracies is primarily because of the conspiracy theories mentioned in Room 237, some were addressed in this interview by Jan Harlan.

Although, I have done a Kubrick moon landing thread here.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

kubrick indeed was an genius ahead of his time, and he acidentally portraied the jacques vallee interdimensional hypothesys very well on 2001

a reply to: humanoidlord

That's a very astute observation, I've long thought that 2001: A Space Odyssey was an artistic foreshadowing of Valle's Interdimensional Hypothesis.

Although, it was really Arthur C. Clark who came up with the story. Kubrick had read Clark's 'The Sentinel' which was similar to 2001, then he and Clark wrote 2001 together.

Kubrick was definitely drawn toward the imaginative implications of an extra terrestrial intelligence that wasn't necessarily a living physical being but a transcendent interdimensional consciousness that pervades throughout the universe.

Good stuff.



Speaking of Vallee, my next epic thread will be about Psychotronics, Jacques Vallee, & The X Files. Look forward to it in about a month or so.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

clarck also predicted the appearence of Lapetus one of saturns moons very well
that moon also has a very arificial looking rim around the moons black area
uhmmmmm.... (maybe clarck was secretely one of "them"!).

a reply to: ColdWisdom

also stop talking about politics politics are just an smoke screen to the really good stuff,stop being baited by the media to talk about trump,the clintons ,socials issues and generic assholes (other politicians,sexists,feminists,alt rights,far lefts,etc),those things are just a psyop angaist the good stuff(ufos,jacques vallee,paranormal,high strangeness reports,etc) stuff like the truther movement,pizzagate crowd,flatearther crowd and mandela effect crowd is also a psy op and so is Stanton Friedman,nick pope and other ones of roswell and remdlesham crowd
sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction

Just want to say thank you for making this thread OP. =)

My first instinct on everything doesnt go to "its a conspiracy" but this thread was such a good read to me that it warrants thinking about it more.

Wicked thread, always loved the shining and Kubricks movies.

Room 237 is quite an interesting film:

Room 237

A chap named Rob Ager has analysed many of Kubricks films in great detail and his offerings are very informative while still managing to be interesting and entertaining. He has made several films regarding the Shining which you can view on YouTube.

My favourite film of Kubricks is A clockwork orange and it's also my favourite book. I often wondered why someone such as Kubrick deviated from the book, what you might perceive to be key scenes or parts of the story.

The most obvious example is the omission of the final chapter in A clockwork orange where Alex, having been cured of the Ludovico treatment and its effects, meets his old droog Pete. In the book, Alex meets Pete and learns that Pete has found a girlfriend, settled down and seems well adjusted and happy. Alex, on the other hand, has returned to his old ways, has a new gang of droogs and hasn't learnt a single thing from his experiences.

It is then that Alex finally grows up of his own free will, he realises he envies Pete and no longer enjoyes the old ultra violence as much as he used to. It's a key chapter in the book, you can get versions of the book where this chapter has been removed for some reason and Kubrick himself allegedly claimed he had read a version which didn't include the final chapter, hence it not being translated to film.

What's intriguing to me is I always got a clockwork orange, even when I first seen it aged 12 or 13. I saw the film before I read the book. the film was heavily criticised as having apparently glorified violence and rape, but it never did - the moral messages were very clear to me. It's about free will, it's about your right to choose to be good or bad. Alex makes his own choices and in the end, in the novella, he makes the right choice - the choice to change as opposed to being controlled and forced to change.

Had the film included the final chapter pehaps this would have been more evident and the film less scrutinised and criticised, and perhaps wouldn't have eventually been withdrawn by Kubrick. To meit says more about the people who assume the film is simply about violence and rape, that's their take on it because they fail to read between the lines and understand the films underlying message.

But now I realise...the final chapter wouldn't have worked with the film. The film had some quite bizarre visuals and a real dystopian feel about it. The book did, too, but the film more so. It's a visually stunning film that creates a particular sense of helplesness...perhaps Kubrick didn't film that final chapter because he didn't actually read a version of the book that included it.

I like to think he deliberately left it out as it most likely wouldn't have sat well with the rest of the film. I think his real genius was knowing what to include and what to omit.

I think this is true of the hospital scene that wasn't included n the final cut of the Shining. Reading that piece of script, it's hard to imagine it actually being in the film. Kubricks genius was giving you enough, but not too much. He leaves you to fill n the blanks and reach your own conclusions...which is why we're still talking about and analysing his work to this day.

A proper artist and visinary - he could take someone elses work and make it his own. The man was amazing.

Love this thread - star and flag for the OP, much appreciated.

ETA:

Just wanted to add - Agers analysis of A clockwork orange and Eyes wide shut are particularly interesting. He postulates that A clockwork orange was, in some way, Kubrick taking a playful swipe at the European union.

One has to wonder why, instead of using Beethovens 5th as in accorance with the book, he decided to use Beethovens 9th symphony, 4th movement. As well as being adopted by the EU, the 9th was also allegedly played at Hitlers birthday! Here is a great little video that gives 20 hidden jokes or easter eggs in the film...extremely interesting, indeed.



I love all the little connections, for example in the music shop scene where Alex picks up two girls you can see Pink Floyds Atom heart mother on display. Stanley apparently sought permission from the band to feature the album cover in the film as it was so unusual and fit with the visuals of the film and the band agreed.

Roger Waters, another hero of mine, requested that Stanley allow him to use some audio from A space odyssey in his amazing Amused to death and Kubrick refused! Roger, being Roger, took this personally and made sure to include a backmasked recording where he berated Kubrick for being so mean spirited.

Modern, live versions of A perfect sense feature the audio that Roger wanted to use and it really does make the track more poignant. In the album version we hear a reversed audio clip of Roger, using the Scottish voice he used to protray the teacher in the Wall, screaming some jibe about Stanley...it then mellows out into a soft, ethereal sound where we can hear distant thunder. however, in live recordings we hear HAL from 2001 asking Dave Will you stop that? I'm afraid

Kubricks movies are so deep with detail and interesting facts and easter eggs, every time I watch one of his films I notice something new. Neat little references and connections, nobody will ever be able to do it the way Stanley did.

Just wanted to add - Agers analysis of A clockwork orange and Eyes wide shut are particularly interesting. He postulates that A clockwork orange was, in some way, Kubrick taking a playful swipe at the European union.

Thanks for the tip - I'll check it out.

I'm old enough to remember back then and I wonder how Ager can explain that without anachronisms.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

I know what you mean.

Ager does a good job in most of his videos, he makes what seem on face value to be pretty wild claims, but his explainations are very clear and he has a knack for justifying his position quite well.

Kubrick was a fan of MP Tony Benn who was staunchly opposed to the European Union. They adopted a modified version of Beethovens 9th symphony as an anthem around the time A clockwork orange was made.

There was a very in-depth video regarding ACO and the EU which I watched a while ago but I can't fnd it any more. Ager doesn't post all of his content on YouTube, perhaps I viewed (viddied) it elsewhere, on his website, maybe.

He's done a lot of writing, also.

His videos abou tthe Shining are also very interesting, he spends a lot of time analysing the apparent movement of props and furniture throughout the film which is particularly intriguing.

Many thanks.

Imo, Kubrick messed the movie up.

The book was great but Kubrick messed the story all up.

The book was not only a great horror story but also a good mystery; Kubrick took all that out and just made it a psycho movie.

To me this was one of Kubrick’s worst movies

a reply to: Willtell

Yeah, they're really quite different.

I still think it's a great movie, I don't think Kubrick intended to make a faithful adaptation of the book. Changes he made were usually pretty deliberate and have some kind of meaning or purpose. Or maybe he was more careless than people think and prone to making very obvious mistakes. I want to believe the former as opposed to the latter but it's really just personal opinion.

When you think about it, the book works well as it is but would a truly failthful adaptation to film be good? It's a reasonably meaty volume...

I tend to look at Kubrick adaptations to be more a vehicle for something Stanley wants to convey as opposed to trying to convey the message of the author. I suppose we'll never really know, but as film I reckon it works really well and there's enough to make it watchable multiple times.

And if that doesn't quite float your boat...there's always the performance of Nicholson to sweeten the deal, he was awesome in that film.

My only real criticism is the performance of Shelley Duval, I never really liked her very much...to me she'll always be Popeye's goofy girlfriend. Her hysterical flailing and whining towards the end of the film got quite irritating at times.