😐 👍 mmmyeah alright. That was ratarded

I think you're on to something

@@Jakey9351 and you misspelled retarded.

It seems that people are forgetting that The Shining is a work of fiction and never really happened. For people to say "It never happened that way. It happened the way that I experienced it, without taking into account that, even though evidence has been provided, it could never be interpreted any other way than the way I interpreted it" is just low-level mentality.

Cute

Both, you experience her hallucinations from the changing sets that your subconscious picks up but not you at the time. Your hallucinating with her which makes you as guilty and as confused as her. Scary stuff when you always hear about subliminall messages and brainwashing.

I think this is more likely true

I agree

Gaslighting in film!!!

@@eeveelynnashes what does that mean?

The boiler was always a plot point

@@maapauu4282 when?

@@americansuperdad5769 In the original, the boiler is what killed Jack

@@maapauu4282 nope. Watch the movie again.

@@americansuperdad5769 Not the movie. By the original I'm referring to the novel.

I love how movie nerds are still fighting over their interpretations of this movie when really it’s just a reflection of their own thinking. This isn’t a real situation. It is representing one and the viewer gets to make up their own mind about what it means. The fact that the creator of this video slips into victim blaming and misogyny speaks more about him than the meaning of the movie.

@@ciom9065 The story was still written by a Human Being with introspectives of himself. Misogyny is an afterthought when it comes to a Homicidal Maniac that decided to kill more than his Wife..

If you think that Kubrick was a genius in all his other works, but a complete idiot in this one, Idk what to tell you. Almost every time Wendy is involved, either there's stuff missing in the background, or the Tony talks through the kid. I'm not saying this is the only narrative of the movie. It wouldn't even work without the "official" one. There are also all these hints about native americans, Nazi Germany, the moon landing etc. That's what Kubrick does. So why should this theory be disregarded, despite all these points?

@@OneCash You obviously haven't seen any other Kubrik movies. Props go missing randomly in several movies, a woman grabs a plate with one hand than it's suddenly in the other without her switching them in the next shot, a man goes for a punch with his left hand but hits him with his right, etc. The Wendy Theory is inconsistent and kinda dumb.

@@ciom9065 Don´t look now, but YOU are fighting over your interpretation of this movie. Nerd...

🤣🤣🤣🤣

LoOOOoL best comment on here

Mind blown

Ohhhhh yeahhhh.

Omg you’re right

Yeah, i think You right, and people think that Kubrick Is some kind of "puppet master" and Make movies that regular people don't have a chance understanding, that Is bullshit, yeah, his movies are very Good but far From some kind of complete mistery!!!

The only reason why i think the hiccups are intentional is because of the light fixtures in certain shots. The rest can be explained as natural mistakes/ changes in the on set throughout the day. The switches rather had to be installed or physically removed during the production. Continuity mistakes are made easily not with effort, unless its intentional. I think the movie is showing the hotel is not what it appears to be and would personally side with the ghosts idea. With that said, any time a characters sanity is called into question and the thread left dangling, every other character is put under scrutiny.

@@notaraven the light switches were changed because all the sets burned down and had to be remade from scratch. Little details like a light switch were easily forgotten

@@Nerdtendo6366 the filming started around may of 1978 and the fire occured in February of 1979. Depending on the reports the filming could have finished some time in march. Kubrick was quoted after the fire that he just needed to shoot 3 close up wendy scenes to fully finish and Jack Nicholson had already gone home. It really depends on which scene was shot when but I don't think the fire can be blamed for the light fixtures.

@@notaraventhe thing is, Kubric made lots of similar mistakes in tons of movies. For example, in Dr. Strangelove has a scene where someone is hiding behind a chair and in the next shot it’s gone. Continuity errors are a very average and common part of film making. Plus, Kubric saying he only has a few shots left to do doesn’t mean he didn’t do retakes after because he didn’t like how the scenes turned out after filming. There is also a really great video that goes in depth in why this theory is bad by Eyebrow Cinema

yes, basically. this is the dumbest theory

Yeah, but apparently this person doesn’t like supernatural reasons behind what’s going on. Which is stupid, because this is fictional. You can write as many mystical things as you want. I mean Stephen King wrote IT which is a supernatural entity.

That's one theory. But like this one, its not actually established in the movie. But its fun to theorize.

Can't compare the book and Kubrick's movie unfortunately, which makes all this alot harder

Agreed but I still love watching stuff like this.

Same. Usually when I see these fan theory videos they have more plot holes than a poorly thought out movie. But this one is actually really interesting and really well thought out.

@@kaitlyne1870 there are some gaping plot holes with this theory.

I am going to actually watch this now , thanks lol

I been reading and watching videos on this for years.. just mindblown. Kubrick is soooooo damn clever. It's just not fair we can't get him on a reddit ama. He literally knew millions of us for blinking decades would keep assuming wendy to be the victim. Even the mixed path of danny the tricycle that didn't mirror the hallway map.. it was just in her head!!!

Lol are you serious? Every single theory about this movie has at least a couple holes in it but this one is sooo full of holes it’s ridiculous. Have you seen any of the other theories about this movie? They’re all really interesting and I think this one definitely interesting but it’s far more full of holes than the others

Dont forget the author...the true genius is stephen king

@@methanmohan966 as long as books and/or cocaine exist, people will talk about him

@@methanmohan966 The book is a booze and cocaine fueled mess. The movie is just the opposite. The brilliance in the movie is all Kubrick.

@@methanmohan966 Stephen King my ass. Overrated author who ripped off true genius writers. Kubrick took his below par material and gave it his own turn. The rest is history.

I love how Kubrick did all this crazy stuff, and then was like “imma just put this right here and walk away.” No explanations or clarifications. Leaving generations to discuss and dispute various theories. Hahahahaha

That seems to be the obvious reason, surprised so many miss it.

Agree. Excellent video but that generic robot voice made me into Wendy!

Good pick up!

Very interesting perspective! Thx for sharing

Very true . I noticed this as well as a young kid watching, however it is unfortunately a common thing with kids that are abused to take most of their anger and feelings of mistrust and direct it towards the non-abusive parent because they are not protecting the child from the abuse and that parent , in many cases ,is being abused as well. When the child recognizes that the parent that could help or "save" them is also powerless it must just be a devastating realization for the child. How awfully tragic knowing that they cannot trust anyone and truly are alone. This sense of dread is captured quite brilliantly in this film.

Shanna , now you mention it … he did climb into his dad’s lap when he tiptoed into the bedroom to get his toy . He told his DAD , he loved him .

I remember thinking what a stupid flaky idiot she was. I heard Stanley hated her and was ruthless torturing her on set. More insanity? Maybe this was a secret middle finger to her and Kings "ghost" story.

Wendy hallucinated me hallucinating Wendy hallucinating you watching this.

I am Jack's hallucination of an hallucination in a skiing motel with a fight club in the 1920s

Yaaaaaass!!!

This comment scared me.

Lmao

I mean it's obvious. Danny's iconic mode of transportation in the hotel also has wheels. How anyone can think anything else is insane.

My theory is the Ullman theory and that is the most plausible theory seeing as it involves no abuse nor supernatural. What happens is after Jack leaves, he just imagines the rest of the movie.

Are these jokes obs these shitty basic theories didn’t happen but perhaps that’s the joke, lol I don’t know but if that’s generally what you believe common that’s like saying it’s all in a dream like yeah you could say that to anything it’s just a worthless ending.

@@yayfly7349 The Wendy Theory implies the exact same thing in that half of it was just made up by Wendy. Is fucking dumb.

this makes more sense thank you so much for your comment it was so well said ❤

Agreed. Where i live, that accumulation happens in a few hrs time on a good❄️ njght.

I was thinking the same thing, too.

Almost sounds like forced method acting.

She acted like a diva half the time, give me a break. 🙄

@@rhaenyralikesyoutube6289 "Are you out of your fucking mind"

She was acting like a diva and was not professional

because Danny is a 'distracted' kid to say the least... I think she was being incredibly compassionate given his 'condition'... This video is total troll distraction... from the guy who originally cracked the code... Jay Weidner... in fact his interpretation was so bang on... it was going viral... that's when a flood of misinformation (what this reminds me of) in order to throw off new viewers that were coming online to check it out... This is the most unbelievable garbage logic one could possibly imagine... watch Weidner's documentaries... and compare side by side... (there is no comparison... in all honesty... this is pathetic...)

its because they used a mannequin in that scene to not upset him about the true nature of the film

I saw this too. Danny's reaction to Jack is better than his reaction to Wendy.

IN the scene where his neck was bruised he is looking at Wendy as if to say, "WTF you psycho, YOU DID THIS!."

He's got his thumb in his mouth and he's staring off into space. He's clearly supposed to be catatonic after the trauma in room 237. He probably doesn't even realize she's there, or that she's picked him up.

40 minutes of robot voice? Hard pass.

Maybe the name comes from "Its shines by its absence" lol

Stephen King named the story. I lean toward the theory- not just this theory- that in Kubrick's interpretation there was no supernatural element.

Maybe the shining is just the husbands wifes kill along the way

yeah seems like hes twisting the facts to fit his narrative....

@@Luitente Just like Kubrick.

@@samsung4360 yea but hes the director so he's telling the story? So he can do whatever he wants with the narrative? There are no facts he can twist? Wtf??

@@Luitente . Fred , Kubrick literally butchered King( the original author) story and made one of him. Let's remember what Mr Robot voice pointed out said of all the easter eggs and delusions the setting made by Kubrick was so twisted it created too many interpretations. Man , idk . Everything works and everything fails with this movie. My advice : accept every theory without doubting anything , it will make a very interesting watch afterwards.

@@samsung4360 what?? Ofcourse stephen king is the author of the novel? And if someone wants to use that story or parts of it for his own movie, hes free to do so?? The director can do whatever he wants with the story, since its his movie

Then why wasn't there any foreshadowing? You can't just use hallucinations as a crutch.

@@alangrosenheider9654 Foreshadowing of Jack's behavior, not Wendy's. Most women in abusive relationships behave like this. There's no discussion about Jack's behavior, there's just a "it's just one of those things" remarks, minimizing the severity of Danny's injuries. And cartoons on the wall? If you meant the motifs, bear in mind the source material has supernatural implications woven into the story. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for Danny to have psychic abilities, in the first place. I can't believe people keep forgetting about that. Jack didn't call Mr. Halloran, Danny called for help with his abilities.

@@alangrosenheider9654 Have you watched the Room 237 documentary? If so, this theory is as off the wall and stupid as they come. He's connecting dots out of random noise.

@@alangrosenheider9654 "The film is not faithful telling of the source material--intentionally so." It doesn't have to be. Both renditions of Pet Sematary aren't 100% faithful to the source material. Creative liberties can be taken and to act like the integrity of the storytelling is the be-all-end-all of how good the film adaptation will be is just ludicrous. "Yes, the cartoons on the wall appear and disappear in their apartment at the beginning of the movie. Her hallucinations are foreshadowed from the beginning of the film." I've seen the film numerous times and haven't seen any cartoons on any walls. I think you might be seeing things.

@@alangrosenheider9654 That's quite a stretch. And it wasn't on the wall, you idiot. It was on the door. And that could mean anything. Did you notice that it was there when Danny was talking with his imaginary friend? It could be a representation of his older self being present trying to warn him about the Overlook Hotel.

There is a difference between a dream and a hallucination but I can see how one can be confused. Also Catcher in the Rye was published in the 50s and the shining in the 80s.

@@gullazero the murder over tcitr didn’t happen until after the movie came out, which is what this video is referencing- the murder, not the actual plot of the book.

@@gullazero Catcher in the Rye is about saving kids which is what she goes on to do with her son, the ties to crazy people murdering people wasn't until after the murder which happened months afterwards.

@@gullazero surely if you watched this video, you can understand why the Catcher in The Rye reference is irrelevant. It doesn't matter when the book was published, as the existence of the book isn't in question. And dream or hallucinations, that also doesn't matter here as you can use all the same evidence in support of either theory. Or just pretend there's a scene at the end where someone wakes up, that actually requires less mental gymnastics and stretching than the Wendy theory.

@@davidpilger4136 Got it.

This was my thought too

Shelly also suffered with real life mental illness. I wonder if Kubrick had knowledge of this and chose her for this reason.

That was my first thought!

I am sold.

He's always like that

* Read in Rob Ager voice. Throughout the film, Danny is depicted with a bowl haircut. This style of haircut was of course made iconic by Moe Howard of Three Stooges fame who was famously the leader of the classic trio. This connection is of course indicative of the fact that Danny is forced to "take charge" during the films climax in order to save himself and his mother. This parallels nicely with the fact that Danny is most frequently shown to wear sweaters (which as we know are made of wool.) These motifs were clearly put in place to subconsciously suggest that Danny is a "lamb" for the slaughter, which makes even more sense when you consider that Jack Torrence is nearly always shown to be wearing shoes during his time on screen, much like the serial killer Ted Bundy. Who was well known for wearing shoes on a near daily basis. Shoes of course are commonly made out of leather, which can also be made from slaughtered lambs. This ties nicely into the habits of Ed Gein (another serial killer) who famously made leather from the skin of his victims. These motifs are undeniable in light of the mounting evidence. Visit my website for more.

@@kgpspyguy that actually made me laugh out loud 😛

Well is one extra layer too because of her hallucination, of S King's, of Kubrick's, and then on top of that your own interpretation.

I dreamt that you would say that.

@@VelvetRolo of course you did...

Like they’ve never seen a Clockwork Orange!

The problem with this dismissal is the continuity errors are hints, not absolutes, and most here are clearly deliberate, as opposed to random.

The movie is actually better than the book by a long shot.

@@jombiejuss I've never actually read the book but if the mini series endorsed by Stephen King was a more accurate retelling it probably isn't as great as the movie.

1810Jeff lol don’t me started

1810Jeff one thing people don’t want to think is that Stephen King is a bit more of a bumpkin type who doesn’t realize he didn’t write a haunted house book. Kubrick could probably more than tell that it was about a damaged family, losing their minds in a huge hotel in the snow. King was like “no no! Ghosts.” And of course the 1990’s miniseries was more like the book and totally laid an egg. King has a formula and sticks to eat to be more prolific but Devastating works like Pet Sematary, he didn’t like it. It’s the stuff of nightmares but breaks his formula at the end so it almost gets shelved. Not middle of the road enough, sadly.

@@jombiejuss The Shining is about the supernatural

Great point. It is the dislocated arm incident all over again. When Danny waves the knife around at Wendy's bedside (notice Wendy is wearing the blue robe Jack was supposedly wearing before) he is saying Red Rum, Red Rum! He writes it in her lipstick, not blood. It is a deliberatly sensual rather than a gory choice. He is calling her out. I think the "Murder" being called out is of Danny's innocence, his childhood. This is what "Tony" means when he says on Danny's behalf that Danny can't wake up.

Jack thinks he's the victim despite him being the aggressor. That's explains his facial expressions

Also explains after he sees that old lady on the bathtub and goes back to the room and tells wendy very calm that he saw no one. I assume it's all in her head. Crazy

In the book she is more self-confident and brave, imo

@@DreadPirarateAndersen there was another movie (made as a miniseries) on tv that followed the book much more closely. Including after the bruises on Dannys neck were shown, Danny tells his dad that Wendy did it.

​@@Andrea1542 yes, Stephen Kings F.U. to Kubric, as he wrote the series screenplay and script (also Kubric gave a F.U. to King, with the yellow VW Bug being crashed in the opening sceene, where you follow the red Bug instead, because it was yellow in the book and the series(ever Notice that))... so i have seen the series, with the moving hedges, etc. but it´s been a couple of years since I saw it and last read "The Shining", so I can´t remember that exact conversation between Danny and Jack, that you are refering to?!

I'm not sure what the point of this video is exactly, but the reason King didn't like it was because the focus was more on Jack Nicholson's character instead of the hotel. If you read the book, the hotel is the main focus. Jack Nicholson is so extraordinary in his performance, he stole the show!!!!

@@francesmalzahn9994 that's my point Kubrick basicly rewrote the story and called it his.

@@ashrimpcalledhank There was another version made for TV that King liked better. Kubrick was strong willed and probably had his own ides, but come on. It's Jack Nicholson! No way to dial down that performance. King's movies never translate well to the screen, in my opinion, any way. His books have so much detail and essence that just can't be in any other form than as they are.

@@francesmalzahn9994 yes I said that.

@@ashrimpcalledhank Of course. Just adding some more info for those who are unaware of the nuts and bolts, as it were.

and no i didnt watch some other video lol so idek whats being referenced in the thread, to clarify, IMO the disparity between his highs and lows are the focus of the film, and never leaves a perspective based on Jack, whether it be his own, or for a lack of better way to define it "the hotel influencing his behavior" is what skews all of it, and the contortions of recollections being that of someone else whos just "along for the ride" (aka ghost/demon/etc) not having the imagery totally burned into their mind, much like how dreaming tends to skew reality just enough, but the wild swings are dead give aways for him losing control of himself, and dwindles down to nothing once inside the hotel.

In an early version of the script, it actually was Wendy. More specifically, the ghosts drive both Jack and Wendy crazy, but its Wendy who murders Jack and Hallibron.

What's so weird about it? is just a theory about a film made by Kubrick

Maybe he wasn't indoctrinated the way you were 🙃

Its a damn computer voice.

​@@bethanyh1637wrong!

Exactly. I'm glad at least a couple of us can clearly see that. This movie is about artistic perfection breaking the maker into exhaustion.

One of my favorite theories

YES!! THANK YOU!! My favorite example of this theory is the maze. It's not in the opening shot. That thing was huge!! We would have scene it. He created it for the story.

Most of the scenes line up with this. 3:30 He didn't witness anything, he's writing and imagining. And he has a scrapbook of articles about the hotel next to him.

This is indeed a disturbing universe

I can't remember where that is from.

@@frankphillips6001 the Simpsons. Both quotes are from the sane episode, but different sketches

Now THAT'S funny

One of my favorite Simpsons quotes!

Unless you are an English Teacher. Or are both broke and educated. It would be different if they had mahogany shelves?

What if they were all the same book?

It is not the stacks of books that make you crazy, it is how any media that can take you away from actual reality can bend an already unstable mind. Think self induced Clockwork Orange. What you ingest has an affect on your behavior. If you are already unable to separate fantasy from reality, the outcome can be rather unpredictable.

@@racer2c like Nukie?

@@dillonwalshpvd I'm going to have to watch a B movie from '87 to get that reference? Ugh.

Yes Jack could be completely crazy the whole time

LMFAO 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 Not impossible tho, could be it

Very good theory!

Very interesting

@@shggy1 have you ever seen fight club? Pretty sure you see split personalities living together in the same scenes multiple times throughout the movie.

Omg! Honestly that is interesting 😯🤣

Possibly something to do with the number of videos produced each day?

This interpretation is a lot more plausible to me than the notion that a director tasked with making a movie based on a book secretly made a completely different movie that only people doing detailed shot-by-shot comparisons looking for inconsistencies would ever be able to pick up on. Kubrick was a brilliant director, but he was notorious for doing dozens of retakes per scene, which is the primary source of continuity errors. Even with him editing the film personally, there’s no way he could have spliced together the best bits from multiple takes shot over multiple days and come up with a final version where they all match up perfectly. Discontinuities like Danny’s tricycle changing color could be intentional, but an actor’s hair going from neat to rumpled is far more likely the result of combining takes shot early vs. late in the day, or even on completely different days. TL;DR: It’s a fun theory for a rewatch, but to assume it was the real story Kubrick intended to tell, you have to ignore a lot of the realities of the filmmaking process.

@@bluevervain8317 Another thing as well is that even within the world of the movie, the overlook hotel is supposed to be a living thing. So having furniture move around and sets change between shots adds to that feeling, even if unintentional.

Yes. I thought of this too. It creates a sort of uncanny feeling.

@@bluevervain8317 I agree - that being said, Kubrick made it very clear that he was hardly following the book. Also, some of those changes are expensive changes.

@@thaddeuskent8185 Oh definitely not disputing that he deviated from the source material quite a bit. I love the movie for its cinematography, but reading the book ruined it for me for a long time. It wasn’t until King made his miniseries adaptation that I was able to enjoy the movie for what it was again without being frustrated by what it wasn’t. (The miniseries has its flaws, but it also has _topiary monsters!_ lol) I think the discrepancies in the film likely fall into one of three categories: 1. Deliberate changes made to unnerve the audience on a subconscious level. (e.g. Danny’s tricycle) 2. Minor discrepancies caused by multiple takes shot over time being cut up and edited back together. (e.g. Jack’s hair and the paper in the typewriter) 3. Differences between scenes shot on set vs. on location (this is the only reason I can think of for the shifting light fixtures, which seem like an impractical thing to move around compared to furniture, etc.)

I'm sure they did. Just because someone disagrees with another doesn't mean either were wrong. It's called an opinion and people are allowed to have differences in the way they see things.

Sometimes opinions can be flawed if they are based on faulty evidence, i.e. this video. Eyebrow Cinema's video is clear and concise in its debunking of the Wendy theory as it is presented in this video.

40 minutes...

Very apt observation 👍🏾 I agree

"The fact they were left puzzled was exactly what Stanley Kubrick wanted." -Jan Harlan (screenwriter)

It is possible that you are correct, it wouldn't be the first time theory's surrounding odd movies gain their own momentum. The only thing is that Kubrick went to great lengths to make these set changes. Placement of objects large and small were deliberate, so it raises the question, why? It is well known that Stanly would edit his movies himself at home, he was meticulous.

Yeah... This guy is absolutely NOT making any sense... I could go point out something wrong with EVERYTHING he is saying, but I do know, that ever since Jay Weidner cracked the code on this movie, there has been a huge influx of misinformation to mislead people away from Weidner's work... because it was literally going viral (it was that compelling...) I can't believe the lunkheads in the comments... some people actually bought into this crap? Weidner, on the the other hand, he didn't figure out every single detail... but the big picture... he clearly, clearly nailed it... check it out for yourself (search Kubrick Jay Weidner documentaries)

But then you wouldn't see the consistency pointed out in the video between the lady's hallucinations and reality. If Kubrick just wanted to say reality is fuzzy here, he wouldn't have exactly 2 sets of appearances. The hall carpet wouldn't switch between 2 shots, there might be 3 or 4 appearances of it. There wouldn't be just Kool-Aid or no Kool-Aid alongside the Tang, there'd be Wyler's and whoever else paid for a placement, and they'd be all switched around instead of just the Kool-Aid or empty space. There'd be a wall switch plate with 1 switch, 2 switches, oriented vertically or side by side, or different styles of switch, rather than just the presence or absence of a single type. BTW, one shot on "Lost" used a wall light switch that was anachronistic, in a scene supposedly taking place in the 1950s with a style of switch not available until decades later, with the camera perseverating an extra second on the shot and in the middle of the frame -- to clue the audience that the scene did not happen, or at least did not happen in the 1950s, i.e. that a certain character's background story was phony.

@@goodmaro ahhh... just like the shill who wrote this you start off with a non existent, but think by repeatedly referring to it makes it real... there is nothing to indicate in any way, shape or form that she is insane, unless you re-interpret everything you see in the movie as if it is the opposite or doesn't exist... and then pretend that somehow things which aren't even in the movie should be there... that is utterly ridiculous, just on the face of it... try simple logic and start with what is actually in the movie, instead of insisting "it's all hallucinatory"...

@@sigma_six Can you give a better (or even plausible) interpretation of why such things as light switches would be there in some shots and not others, and it not be a matter of two different observers? And since you can't, how else could you possibly explain those differences other than as hallucination? There's no reason light switches would be installed and uninstalled between the views, so it could only be hallucination. And if one observer is hallucinating, who could that observer be? Would it make sense for any story-telling purpose for that hallucinating (or lying) observer to be someone other than a character? In many cases it could *only* be a character, there being nobody else there. Is there any better candidate, anyone whose hallucinatory observation would make for a better story than that it be her?

@@goodmaro don't fall into the trap, that because you don't understand something... therefore it has to be "A"... when it could be B, C, D, E, F, etc ad infinitum... the human mind likes to fill a vacuum... but that isn't logical analysis, and I haven't heard any plausible reason why, other than this guy's "interpretation" of Jack's "facial expression" ???? Really??? And from that extrapolate an entirely non existent storyline? Unlike a lot of these comments, I am not going to "pretend to know what I don't know..."... keep it simple, stupid... as they say, Every time there is an intentional continuity error of something being there vs not being there = hallucination... is super weak (to pathetic imo) and then to place all this on Wendy being a schizo (even though it doesn't fit into the storyline, either the original or Kubrick's version is pathetic (again)) Especially when you have a crazed lunatic like Jack, unmistakable, unequivocal, right in your face, repeatedly building up, which fits PERFECTLY into the story that is being told (duhhh...) To follow this guy's retarded logic would be to infer that the previous custodian didn't really exist? Jack didn't really experience his hallucination? that he didn't really talk the other custodian (in hallucination) or go to the ball (in hallucination) or talk to the bartender (in hallucination) and he didn't really kill Hollarand? even though all this was portrayed in unmistakable detail?... because the real secret is that Wendy is a schizo? Wow... give your head a shake!... the story is right in front of you... Start with what the story is saying at face value... i.e. The place was haunted... and Jack was taking over the duties of the previous custodian... and eventually anyone who stayed there long enough would be affected... why the only legitimate "hallucination" Wendy experienced is near the end, AFTER she was emotionally traumatized and driven to the edge by Jack, etc... At least start with what is obvious... Like I said go back to Weidner's Documentary... it doesn't have to involve suspending common sense or disbelief... Lol.. it goes straight to the punch... explains the big picture, has repeated independent confirmation, too many coincidences, they all line up, they are consistent, and support exactly the artificial NASA imagery the public was shown. In fact you have to study the making of 2001 and it's perfect coinciding with the NASA program... and why would the Military be so willing to help Kubrick make a crazy "science fiction" movie? the most expensive, with the most special effects in history up to that time? NO ONE would have taken the risk of spending 4 years and spending that much money... and the Military involvement which was in the original credits, btw, has since been removed... as witnessed by a very few people who watched the ORIGINAL MOVIE IN THE THEATRE... There is a HUGE amount of back story and context (Why you have to go to Weidner's work which is much more detailed and explanatory...) The NASA moon landing footage, which has been repeatedly debunked by film makers and professional photographers. Like Weidner said, "This has nothing to do with whether the astronauts went to the moon or not..." We weren't shown the original footage... the special effects used in Kubrick's 2001, which was cutting edge at the time, is clearly seen repeatedly in the NASA moon landing footage (unmistakable, once you look for it...) In fact the problem with the NASA moon landing footage is that it is too movie production perfect!... And it doesn't show people in 1/6 gravity... (but that requires basic high school physics to understand... so I won't go there...) And all this comes from people who study film and photography for a living... Here's one simple example for you... why did they have too much luggage than could fit into the Volkswagen? And this is only ONE possible interpretation (but it MAKES SENSE...) Think about what you saw on the moon... how could that little mickey mouse lunar lander have unloaded all that tech?... up to and including a full size moon rover? Go to Weidner's work... it makes infinitely more sense... because it unlocks the truth...

That's not even mentioning half the shot burned down halfway through production!

To be honest, she does show a little bad acting here and there.

@@stewartj3407 she isn't the best actress of the world but there is no justification for hardly bullying a person on the set. If she doesn't have good abilities then call an other actress. Kubrick was deeply obsessed by perfection and by Wendy's character. In simple words this is called psychological abuse and it's not correct also to create a legendary film.

She mainly had worked with Robert Altman who was into improvisation, Kubrick was the opposite of that, although Here's Johnny was an adlib... watch the movie 3 Women and see her talent, that is how Kubrick chose her, from that role.

I think she did an amazing job in this film.

@Comic Lover I read it as they were psychologically manipulating her on purpose to make her performance exude someone who's gone insane. Not that she went to therapy because she was offended by the comments.

so give examples or take your pompous ass where it's appreciated.

Same here! And Jack being a writer/teacher seems just as likely that he would own the books. It's certainly equivalent evidence as showing Wendy reading a book once and therefore being responsible for all the books.

schizophrenia may be a necessary consequence of literacy

I love the books.

They're also laid out strangely in the room, though. I haven't personally met any avid readers or book collectors that have books piled randomly throughout a room like that

Or maybe Stephen King nor Stanley Kubrick never even thought about this angle. But we are sure there are many there to tell them this is what their story really meant. Though Im sure that's not Stanley's concern right now, nor Stephen's for that matter.

Or she was making sure he said as he had been rehearsed to. To explain away Jacks abuse possibly....idk it could be argued either way both are open for much debate

Not saying SK specifically wrote Dr. Sleep, to rebut this movie, but it’s a bit of a known quantity that Stephen King did not like this film adaptation of his book I mean fundamentally you have Stephen King writing in his medium, and Kubrick directing in his. Wouldn’t be the first time the two creative artists clashed on some thing even if involuntarily. Essentially Kubrick says, “no Wendy was just quite crazy“, and Stephen King says, “no it was all supernatural

@@darkzak47 Okay, then let's take into account the film that was made based on Dr. Sleep. The same line was spoken by Danny. In the film that was made to be a sequel to both the book and the Kubrick film. Aka, regardless of how you stack it, the Wendy Theory falls on its ass the moment you remember the story of Dr. Sleep exists in both written and visual media.

@@Metalalbumreviewers these both came after. That's like saying emperor palpatine never died because they ret-conned him back in in the most recent sequels.

@@queequeg00 Well the movie came after te novel so....

Agreed.

Brilliant!!!

"Daisy, daaiisssyyyyyy..........."

I'm 25 seconds in. Am I really going to listen to a robot for 40 minutes?

@@DukeStarbuckle I''m afraid I can't do that, Duke.

@@DukeStarbuckle It only took two weeks.

They discuss the maze in the initial interview, so by the logic of the theory, the maze is real.

@@GetMeThere1 Right, and fair enough. I guess my point is that I think there are more layers to uncover in this theory. The continuity errors marking the start of hallucinations is a profound observation and works all well and good. But I think this theory forgot about the spatial inconsistencies of the Overlook, and how they too could denote something with this mental illness idea. If the interview was taking place in a room that by all means should not exist, then perhaps the interview itself isn't reliable. But, then again, one of either the storage room or freezer room shouldn't logically exist either, given their placement. I just feel like there's something hiding in plain sight in regards to this particular rabbit hole. I'm trying to piece together exactly what.

@@AAllen-br8it The "anchor" is that all scenes of the hotel during the initial interview were of reality -- he uses that for the entire basis of determining reality vs psychotic dreams of Wendy.

@@GetMeThere1 Yeah, I watched the video.

@@AAllen-br8it so it makes no difference whether he was left in the storage room or the maze, that is completely inconsequential

that's kind of what the shining itself is about because Stephen king had a similar experience he and his family watched over a hotel and he had a drinking problem and he had a fear of hurting his kids so he wrote the shining

​@@thekingvarietynight8593 pretty sure King just stayed at the hotel and wasn't looking after it. Why would Stephen King be a hotel care taker?

and it makes the movie 10x more frightening.

@@soccom8341576 If you ever watch behind the scenes, it makes sense now why the director was intentionally making Shelly Duval have a psychotic break (her hair was even falling out at one point due to the high stress he put on her)...because her role was the crazy one.

Noticed that too. Was kind of wondering if Wendy didn't kill Halloran, projecting herself into a Jack persona. He'd never have expected it.

Found an early script, and it's really interesting. Wendy fights off Jack, who eventually succumbs to mortal wounds. Halloran arrives, and becomes possessed by the hotel (described as, "an appalling figure of lunatic savagery"), hunting Danny. Wendy goes in search for Danny, and eventually confronts Halloran. This is where you have to wonder whether Kubrick didn't arrive to the Wendy theory through multiple iterations because it was already latent in this early draft: "Wendy, armed with the knife, her eyes blazing, her hair flying wildly, her lungs nearly bursting, runs through the rooms and corridors of the hotel calling out for Danny. In her frenzied search for the child, she herself will come to resemble some maddened, demoniacal figure." It concludes with the confrontation, Halloran having paused at Danny's psychic powers: "At this instant, Wendy will rush howling out of a doorway, stabbing in a frenzy, with her long boning knife, so that the old lady in 'Psycho' will look like a pushover in comparison. There will be no question about how she is able to kill a homicidal maniac." So two things are clear. One, early draft had Wendy going into a slow, steady descent into madness, almost reminiscent of Pyle in Full Metal Jacket. All of the violence and trauma and horror evokes in her a murderous rage. Two, Kubrick's tweaks weren't just minor. These are significant departures early on from the book, as well as significant deviation from the finished product. He was already experimenting with the Wendy character, and in ways, she was the fulcrum on which the movie turned in this draft. According to the Wendy theory, this never changed; it only became more nuanced.

@@Derek-kj9mt any links?

@@diablojones Tried to link but either didn't post or was removed. You can find a copy at cinephiliabeyond. I'd Google that + Kubrick.

Oh, that is for certain - It didn’t even better mentioning. That’s exactly how she would imagine her hallucination of a storybook villain to act

Absolutely! You are right, it makes sense. Supernatural mixes with reality, so not confined to rules of reality.

I think it’s the spirits in the house doing what they want. Trying to go to the old decor.

Colative learning and the documentary Room 234 hit on a lot of themes this theory ignores. This theory is well thought out and could be true, but I think theres layers of other themes this theory doesnt link to that the theories from those other sources fit better with. Theres heavy allusion to Native Americans and US history tied into this movie that dont jive with this interpretation.

@@johngialousis3041 definitely heavy on themes. But I really enjoy this theory and think it's mostly correct. Multiple themes are all still there, no doubt, but what's happening in the story I think really is Wendy's psychotic break. It connects so many things that could not be explained otherwise.

I also thought the same.

Actually, Kubrick replaced Danny with a mannequin in the scene when Wendy picks him up.

@@jacobp2690 yes but she is talking about the scene when he(danny) was standing and wendy hugged him before picking up.

He looks mortified when she acts surprised and asks how he got his injury. It is a mixture of terror and "Are you SERIOUS?!!?".

That’s the biggest thing I noticed because when a child had an injury they want mom to comfort them. He obviously didn’t.

This makes me think of the Fight Club book and Fincher's adaptation. Palahniuk's book was mostly a social satire, Fincher made it a psychological take. If you look at the incredibly well written theories from the jackdurden website, the movie takes the story to a whole new level. Even Palahniuk shared the theories on his social media because he was so impressed with this new insight.

The voice complaints are coming because the video has over 400k views. Unfair in the respect that, like you, I assume there are many valid reasons to not be able to speak on mic or even not be willing to (anxiety is a real impairment; I know of at least one KZfaqr with millions of views that made a second account just to be clear that they wouldn't get on mic on that account). It's fair in the respect that having so many views on a 40-minute video with a cheap automated voice is pushing the limits of tolerability.

@@kruks Yes. Personally I am speech impaired so for me a robe voice would be needed. Since my disability occurred I have found a lot of intolerance for the disabled. Even the Social Security Administration does not comply with the ADA as some of their offices offer no contact by text, email or TDD for hearing and speech impaired people.

Then fucking have a friend do it. This robot shit is insufferable.

@@eamonia put on the subtitles and turn off the volume and FO

Also Dopey is usually pictured in a purple cap and socks with a green coat, if that sticker isn't there, maybe she just remembered his color scheme being different that it actually is.

Lmao dumbass

The cook said "i must have heard you calling him doc" to which wendy replied "i dont think so" (i dont remember addressing danny as doc in front of you).

Yeah I agree with you on that -- that he gave her a look like "who the fuck do you think?" But it could also just be the kid's best attempt to follow directions to act like he's frightened into silence.

I mean you can see ture terror in her when she is doing some of the most deranged scenes

Her performance is amazing and even she later said she felt no ill will towards him for it.

Why is Jack even in that picture. More to this story.

Interesting. Maybe he is trying to escape from the photograph, and that other person is trying to stop him. Jack is trapped in hell. Another theory is that he is the representation of Baphomet ,an occult figure symbolic of evil. Jack seems to be the host of this evil 'Ball" his arms being in the exact positions that Baphomet has his arms.

If the continuity ‘errors’ are done ONLY from the Wendy POV then they are not ‘errors’. If it was the hotel then all shots from various POV’s would show up. Some might also say that only the mentally ill can perceive the supernatural phenomena. So it could be that Wendy is mentally ill AND the hotel is subject to supernatural phenomena.

@@brownwhale5518 I don't think they did a good job of establishing why these are Wendy's hallucinations and not Jack's.

@@ebrown7794 maybe they’re both nuts

@@brownwhale5518 Hasn't it been shown that if a person hangs around someone with dementia or schizophrenia long enough they develop some similar symptoms? If that was known back then maybe that could explain why Jack goes mad or vice versa.

His other movies are full of continuity errors too. So are most movies that exist. Movies are filmed in many takes, on different sets, during different times, not in chronological order. Errors like these happen in all movies. It's not proof of anything.

I have often wondered how he could be frozen and locked in a warm storage room. The odds of that happening even in a haunted house in a movie. I have not watched the entire movie. Just bits and pieces but enough to notice the strange scenery changes. The way he is locked in a storage room. Then he is out but the door is not damaged. If he had gotten out. It would have been an act of a caring father. Not the desperate rash thinking of a lunatic. Psychotic break downs are not the acts of sound judgment. The proof she is the one having the break down. Is her obvious hallucinations that she sees for herself. Blood flooding the hallway etc.

That’s an amazing way to look at the movie.

The movie feels like 10 horror movies put together, I think every actor is playing a character with a facade too so every performance is like 2 or 3 performances, usually with the most surface level performance being cheesy acting that you could imagine the characters coming up with. The music takes you far into another world too and the expert camera work makes you more likely to sit in it and get hypnotized, so it can make even the average bozo have a transcendental experience if they focus a little.

Brilliant lmao

Having watched about a dozen of these shining analysis videos, I have yet to find one that doesn’t make “The Shining” more retarded.

@@fredrik8500 lmao

The director intentionally made it that way. He even said it outright. There's no clear right or wrong answer. The book is clear about it, but the movie is not the book.

@@bethanyh1637 what does that have to do with how people are insinuating supernatural = bad

@@ShinyPrimarina because the original comment is arguing the other way around, that it being supernatural in the book means it is true for the movie, when it's pretty clear it's made intentionally ambiguous

Wendy Theory rulz!

So ONLY accept Possible hallucinations and All Spiritual Chicanery, but IGNORE all Physical clues ? Now, how does That work better, exactly, please do elaborate.

This is garbage honestly

@@hyakugame type in Shelly duvall's last interview the woman from The shining type that in and tell me she's not seeing ghosts bro

@@hyakugame you should make a video trying to refute the content of this video.

And had he used the hedge animals that were present in the book that would have been more obvious

Does it mention furniture moving in the book?

It does not mention furniture, I meant the book implied the hotel was sentient.

I like the premise... but if that was the case, then wouldn't the characters in the movie notice the changes? The changes are only visible to the viewer... so that indicates something else... and does work with the hallucination theory.

@@sunsetcaptiva8573 the hotel can still be sentient. its just that its targeting Wendy. The least stable of the three, and the only female since Grady's victims were female.

It actually made me like the film more. I enjoy psychological horror most of all.

@@katthefantastic me too, I think it can be argued that it's all in the head of any of the three main characters

@@ChillDude.... truth. The biggest victim, in fact and fiction, is always the child. Danny, having to deal with "unstable" parents, this is horror.

@@katthefantastic I agree, one of the scariest things in this world

Also we cn even say that all the characters in the movie are just imaginary ppl of wendy? Wendy is alone in a mental asylum... theres a removed ending in The Shining showed wendy and danny admitted in the hospital after escaping overlook... Schizophrenia patients always hv imaginary frens n families n also imaginary life...

or he just wasn't happy with her acting. she's not the greatest actress.

@@victoire614 that makes no sense because Jack was pushed just as hard, especially in the axe scene. The goal was to make them both feel like they are actually going crazy irl so they can authentically play their roles.

@@victoire614 Jack Nicholson said Shelly was the best actress he's ever worked with. I think his opinion is a lot more credible than yours...🤷🏽‍♀️

I’ll buy that. It made a much better Kubrick film than a King novel.

"Lookit me! I practically made the film!"

exactly

…and there is the issue of certain areas of the globe at certain times fostering schizophrenic environments, for instance towns in Ireland …and urban immigrant areas in the states …and Kubrick was a Jewish director who was allegedly examining the cultural experience of Jewish parenting in some socio economic situations…ie dad working long white collar hours…weak-minded or alternately precious or college educated wives without parenting interests or experience going stir crazy (as some socio economic strata of Jewish women were some of the first to have college educations in the states without a lot of professional outlet opportunities because being a wife and mother was expected)

Sorry to hear that. That must have been difficult.

@@searchindex3438 Where did you learn about Kubrick allegedly researching parenting of Jewish couples etc etc? Was he doing so at the time he made this movie? Did he mean for the Torrances to be regarded as Jewish?

@@ronmackinnon9374 I appreciate that I do wish things would’ve been different for my mother because I know none of it was pleasant for her however it’s hard for me to regret as I learned a lot from the experience that I use every day and I think it’s helping a good person and empathetic