It's not completely unreasonable to assume that he had some part in the production of that, right? We all know it's fake but how did they make it seem so realistic? Tis guy was obviously involved
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
He was too autistic to allow all those mistakes
lol, no
He didn't even bother getting the door right between shots
good catch - an elaborate, paneled door cuts to a plain one. Pretty big mistake.
Another thing to note, if he were really as autistic as people say, the interior scenes would've been filmed in the same location as the exterior ones, in reality he used two different houses altogether, and none of them are even in the same country the movie is set in
So either someone royally screwed with the movie while he's was busy being dead, or he really did a sloppy job all around
There's also the infamous helicopter shadow in The Shining aerial shot.
see the second part of
it's so that YOU know that it's a set and not the inside of some rothschild estate, probably agreed upon, speaks to the nature of these fricks, that killed him and cut 20 mystery minutes from the belly of the beast part of the film
Fair enough, if I were part of some influential family and some homosexual tried to imply people had orgies in my flagship home I'd be pissed too
In counterpart, if I owned the home where Kubrick in fact filmed the orgy, I'd be even more pissed off
The internal architecture of the hotel in the shining is also nonsense, I think he does this on purpose
Nah they wouldn't have gotten some civilian to film it, they'd have got some military/intelligence agency guy who knew to keep his mouth shut
That's one of the major theories supporting the moon landing being faked so no, you're not unreasonable or special.
i don't think personally if he had full control as in on set and everything, people wouldn't be able to tell the footage was israelited. IF he was involved it probably was with concept arts and photos, not hands on
Meds. Now.
>YWNBAW
YWNBAW
>didn’t like america and eventually moved away
why tf would he help them fake winning the space race?
>government wants him out of america for convenience
makes sense
Why would they need Kubrick? He has nothing special to bring to the project, NASA were perfectly capable of faking it all themselves. They didn't need special editing or unusual camera angles ffs.
Stanley got the surface of the moon wrong in 2001.
Stanley got the surface of the earth wrong too as the Apollo 8 'Blue Marble' photo was released 2 months after '2001' was.
Stanley got lunar gravity wrong by depicting floating dust in several scenes.
The entirety of the plot and premise of the film is about off-screen alien intelligence elevating humanity's intellectual capability simply by influencing a band of struggling apes into using bones as both tools and weapons and consuming meat and leads to 10'000 years into the future where a similar beacon of that same unknown alien origin is discovered on the moon in the Tycho crater near Clavius which notifies yet another of its kind, an even larger monolith near Jupiter, that mankind has achieved space capabilities and is leaving his radle to embark on yet another unknown and unseen step in our evolution as star children like seen at the end.
Kubrick may or may not have had a hand in the moon mission in some way, but I do believe the US ultimately went there and have no reason to not still be there today in some unknown capacity.
didn't he get paid in lenses?
he told nasa to create 4 nightvisionlenses and he got 3 of em
what does the moon landing exactly mean?
that russia cant own the moon?
who owns it then? the chinese?
>who owns it then?
Low key, America owns it.
proof?
The US gubmint reached out to several people. The moon landing was a collaboration between the US gubmint and the British monarchy. They got Howard Hughes and Kubrick in pinewoods studios and literally area 51 in America. Area 51 is actually a giant movie studio for the production but after was used for storage of military surplus.
The most likely scenario is that the moon landing was real but they were prepared for the contingency of needing to fake it and approached Kubrick as a consultant and may have even retained him to whatever degree.
You're going to have to explain why they felt the need to destroy all the evidence that we actually went there. And why we were never able to repeat the process.
What's more likely: kubrick filmed the moon landing OR space odyssey had state-level benefactors/nasa contribution, aka, he was contracted for it ala soft disclosure? Think about the ipads n shit in the thingy.
ET PHONE HOME