NutWrench: 5 seconds in:

" . . . or how many ways Kubrick hid obvious references to his involvement in filming the Apollo moon landing."

You're going to have to do better than screenshots of American Indian motifs (most of which symbolize misfortune, which is appropriate to the film and have nothing to do with the moon) and a sweater that was in the movie 2 years after the moon landing happened.

I do agree about the multiple takes, though. Kubrick was a perfectionist the to the point of being a huge pain in the ass. Most of his actors probably really WERE half crazy by the time Kubrick got the take he wanted.

MurphyMurphy: I seem to be a little low on cash flow.

How's my credit in this establishment, Lloyd?

Tyrone Slothrop: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x325]

Taylor Mental: John Buck 41: MurphyMurphy: I seem to be a little low on cash flow.

How's my credit in this establishment, Lloyd?

Your credit's fine Mr. Torrance.

In fact, your credit is so good, the Management has offered to extend its child-rearing expertise for the benefit of your son, Danny. May we have your permission to discipline the errant child, sir?

Birnone: cousin-merle: NeoCortex42: Just go watch Room 237.  That movie is absolutely insane.

This.  A 5-minute summary does not communicate the crazy that is in Room 237.  Also, some of the stuff in the movie is extremely interesting, like how the actual floor plan of the hotel can't possibly exist.  Room 237 has some weird, absurd stuff in it, but Kubrick was a perfectionist, so he would have made sure the hotel's physical layout was depicted correctly, if that's what he wanted to show.

I saw a video on Youtube, it involved another movie or tv show with kids in it, and it was about how while all the other kids were outside, one girl was by herself inside the home. This scene was at the beginning and audience members thought it was showing how she was isolated and not really part of the group. Then the director said no, what happened was she was unavailable to film the scene outside with the others, so they shot the interior scene with her later so they could show where her character was at that moment. There was no subtext there, it was just so the audience wouldn't wonder where the hell is the other girl? Not everything is planned or has deep meanings. Sometimes circumstances dictate what's in the movie or not.

Taylor Mental: John Buck 41: Taylor Mental: John Buck 41: MurphyMurphy: I seem to be a little low on cash flow.

How's my credit in this establishment, Lloyd?

Your credit's fine Mr. Torrance.

In fact, your credit is so good, the Management has offered to extend its child-rearing expertise for the benefit of your son, Danny. May we have your permission to discipline the errant child, sir?

"A momentary lapse of muscular control"

I'm often amazed with the pop-culture-schooled denizens of Fark who have no familiarity with the actual substance of books that became movies. It's almost as they have an aversion to reading more than one or two sentences on any given topic.

Taylor Mental: The heart of the story is how the little kid with super hero, clairvoyant (a formulaic staple in most King novels) ability threatens apparent ghosts from the 1920s Prohibition "speakeasy" Era inhabiting an old hotel when his washed up, alcoholic father has a lapse and falls off the wagon while supposedly being isolated from booze on a blizzard-bound mountain.

The movie makes it out like some ghosts showed up and brought the booze to Mr. Torrance. But the book tells an entirely different story - that he lost his mind from social isolation and mental stress psychosis brought on by the demands of his job and being locked up with a wife and kid he really didn't want.