2015 Off Topic Thread

[Luke]

There's something to be said about people who try to connect dots that aren't there.

There is . They are called paranoid schizophrenics

[Ludo]

I guess for me it's an exploration of another person's consciousness, and that's interesting. As long as there's an understandable logic to the theories that are presented, and I can at least see how someone reached their conclusions, then I'll find it interesting.

With the Apollo guy, I'm not sure what exactly it is that you've watched so far or how much you've seen, but I feel like there is logic there. I can see how he would put the pieces together and get where he got, even if ultimately he got it wrong.

I watched an 11 minute clip that claimed to be from Room 237, a deep voiced guy explaining how he came to that conclusion. But none of it seemed right. I personally didn't see what the fuck he was really getting at until he came right out and said it.

I liken him to those people who believe that Bigfoot is still roaming the backwoods of Appalachia, or that Loch Ness still has a massive prehistoric creature swimming in it that nobody has been able to snag clear visual evidence of. Sometimes people WANT something to be true so badly that they start looking for ways to prove it, without actually proving it It's a logical fallacy, no matter how swathed in would-be-evidence, or feigned coincidence. Much in the same way a self fulfilling prophecy works.

[SPX]

Some shit is just too "out there" for my suspended disbelief. It's one thing when a movie that's supposed to be fiction does it. But when people are actually proposing these kinds of ideas in all seriousness, it just becomes comical to me in the worst possible way.

I guess for me it's an exploration of another person's consciousness, and that's interesting. As long as there's an understandable logic to the theories that are presented, and I can at least see how someone reached their conclusions, then I'll find it interesting.

With the Apollo guy, I'm not sure what exactly it is that you've watched so far or how much you've seen, but I feel like there is logic there. I can see how he would put the pieces together and get where he got, even if ultimately he got it wrong.

[Ludo]

If that's how you feel about it, then the movie's not for you. As I've said a few times now, I was fascinated by the Apollo 11 guy and his ideas. He didn't CONVINCE me, but he fascinated me. If it means anything to you, some of the other theories I do think are more plausible (and some less so).

I actually intend to watch it again soon, back-to-back with The Shining.

Some shit is just too "out there" for my suspended disbelief. It's one thing when a movie that's supposed to be fiction does it. But when people are actually proposing these kinds of ideas in all seriousness, it just becomes comical to me in the worst possible way.

[SPX]

I know the point of it was to give credence to the open ended spectrum of interpretation, but that Apollo 11 shit was just retarded. I don't think Kubrick is some kind of artsy genius in the sense that he "knew" people would read farther into shit than was ever intended, I just think he was the kind of artsy genius who just went off what felt right to him, or what made the most sense to him.

I completely understand why he didn't even finish the documentary. He didn't make the films so that thirty something years down the road a bunch of tin foil hat wearing assholes who call themselves fans would sit around talking about him as something other than an artist or a visionary. Not that he's necessarily only up to hearing praise, but calling him the guy who faked the lunar landing footage is kind of akin to calling him the second shooter on the grassy knoll.

I do truly think, without having watched the whole thing of course, that if the other theories are anything like the Apollo 11 theory, that the documentary doesn't have much to offer me. I get the feeling it's more about tearing the movie apart and analyzing it in small enough pieces that they can then manipulate to fit any puzzle they want. I get the feeling I wasn't far off when I commented about psuedo-intellectuals who need to find some kind of deeper meaning in every little thing. For them a hole in the ground has to lead to DB Coopers money, or the mouth of hell, or an underground civilization. It can't just be a hole in the ground to them.

There's something to be said about people who try to connect dots that aren't there.

If that's how you feel about it, then the movie's not for you. As I've said a few times now, I was fascinated by the Apollo 11 guy and his ideas. He didn't CONVINCE me, but he fascinated me. If it means anything to you, some of the other theories I do think are more plausible (and some less so).

I actually intend to watch it again soon, back-to-back with The Shining.

[SPX]

Think the guy that wrote the book and someone who actually worked on the movie trumps the opinion of an Entertainment Weekly reporter.

If any of it had made sense, it might have been good. Saying Brian O Connor and Dom were gay lovers would have been more believable that the stuff that movie made up

You didn't think the idea about the overturned red VW was compelling?

[Ludo]

I know the point of it was to give credence to the open ended spectrum of interpretation, but that Apollo 11 shit was just retarded. I don't think Kubrick is some kind of artsy genius in the sense that he "knew" people would read farther into shit than was ever intended, I just think he was the kind of artsy genius who just went off what felt right to him, or what made the most sense to him.

I completely understand why he didn't even finish the documentary. He didn't make the films so that thirty something years down the road a bunch of tin foil hat wearing assholes who call themselves fans would sit around talking about him as something other than an artist or a visionary. Not that he's necessarily only up to hearing praise, but calling him the guy who faked the lunar landing footage is kind of akin to calling him the second shooter on the grassy knoll.

I do truly think, without having watched the whole thing of course, that if the other theories are anything like the Apollo 11 theory, that the documentary doesn't have much to offer me. I get the feeling it's more about tearing the movie apart and analyzing it in small enough pieces that they can then manipulate to fit any puzzle they want. I get the feeling I wasn't far off when I commented about psuedo-intellectuals who need to find some kind of deeper meaning in every little thing. For them a hole in the ground has to lead to DB Coopers money, or the mouth of hell, or an underground civilization. It can't just be a hole in the ground to them.

There's something to be said about people who try to connect dots that aren't there.

[Luke]

I think the idea of the movie was good, but the actual movie sucked. Like the idea of the move Runner Runner was good, but the movie blew bad

[Luke]

Well again, as I mentioned, it's not about the theories, it's about the theorists. Since we're quoting Wiki:




To me, it was fascinating.

Think the guy that wrote the book and someone who actually worked on the movie trumps the opinion of an Entertainment Weekly reporter.

If any of it had made sense, it might have been good. Saying Brian O Connor and Dom were gay lovers would have been more believable that the stuff that movie made up

[Luke]

I dunno. The anchor was probably stunned. Also, someone grabbed this screencap:

That screen cap was from the camerman's camera when it hit the ground. Former employee that went crazy.

[SPX]

Just another instance to show how fucked up this country has beome.

And the anchor......wtf? At what point do you pretend you care about a fellow employee getting murdered on TV instead of just going on with the news?

I dunno. The anchor was probably stunned. Also, someone grabbed this screencap:

[SPX]

^^^^It was just bad. Just seemed like a big waste of time to me. Trying to get me to see something that wasn't there.

Pretty much my thoughts:

"
In a March 27, 2013 article in The New York Times, Leon Vitali, who served as personal assistant to Kubrick on the film, stated "There are ideas espoused in the movie that I know to be total balderdash"; for example, the documentary's theory concerning a poster of a minotaur is in fact referencing a poster of a skier and the film's usage of a German typewriter, interpreted to be symbolic of the Holocaust, was chosen by Kubrick for pragmatic reasons. He concluded that "[Kubrick] didn’t tell an audience what to think or how to think and if everyone came out thinking something differently that was fine with him. That said, I’m certain that he wouldn’t have wanted to listen to about 70, or maybe 80 percent [of Room 237]... Because it’s pure gibberish."^[18]
In an October 2014 interview with Rolling Stone, Stephen King said that he had seen the film and that he "watched about half of it and got impatient with and turned it off" as he felt the filmmakers were "reaching for things that weren't there".^[19]"

Well again, as I mentioned, it's not about the theories, it's about the theorists. Since we're quoting Wiki:

Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the movie an "A", writing: "Room 237 makes perfect sense of The Shining because, even more than The Shining itself, it places you right inside the logic of how an insane person thinks."

To me, it was fascinating.

[Luke]

Camera man and reporter get shot live on the air. Both confirmed dead. This is FUCKED UP.

Just another instance to show how fucked up this country has beome.

And the anchor......wtf? At what point do you pretend you care about a fellow employee getting murdered on TV instead of just going on with the news?

[Luke]

^^^^It was just bad. Just seemed like a big waste of time to me. Trying to get me to see something that wasn't there.

Pretty much my thoughts:

"
In a March 27, 2013 article in The New York Times, Leon Vitali, who served as personal assistant to Kubrick on the film, stated "There are ideas espoused in the movie that I know to be total balderdash"; for example, the documentary's theory concerning a poster of a minotaur is in fact referencing a poster of a skier and the film's usage of a German typewriter, interpreted to be symbolic of the Holocaust, was chosen by Kubrick for pragmatic reasons. He concluded that "[Kubrick] didn’t tell an audience what to think or how to think and if everyone came out thinking something differently that was fine with him. That said, I’m certain that he wouldn’t have wanted to listen to about 70, or maybe 80 percent [of Room 237]... Because it’s pure gibberish."^[18]
In an October 2014 interview with Rolling Stone, Stephen King said that he had seen the film and that he "watched about half of it and got impatient with and turned it off" as he felt the filmmakers were "reaching for things that weren't there".^[19]"

[SPX]

Just watched it and my opinion is it was horrible. Like 2/10 bad.

->Spoiler Alert!<-

The theories were so big of stretches that they weren't even slightly realistic,imo. Most of the things they saw were common "goofs" that happen when a movie is being made. Dopey misssing and the chair disapearing in between shots meant something, but the shawdow of a hellicopter(which obvisiosly wasn't meant to be in the film) didn't.

The numbers were worse. 3 x 7 x 2= 42....sheesh.

The typewriter was German so its obviously represented the Holocast....wow.

That was bad. The Signs write up you posted at least made a little sense and stayed on one subject throughout; this movie was all over the freaking place. Bad. Just bad

If the rest of it was anything like that Apollo 11 shit, then I believe you're right on the money.

Hmm. These are some interesting reactions. Y'all may be surprised to learn that the film has gotten many more positive reactions than negative ones, with a 93% on RT and an 80 on Metacritic.

RT: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/room_237_2012/
Metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/room-237

I think it's important to understand what this film is and what it's trying to be. Both of you seem to be caught up on the plausibility of the theories, but the film isn't about that at all. It's an exploration of the strong reactions that people have had to The Shining and the sorts of interpretations--no matter how outlandish--that people have developed about the movie.

The director, Rodney Ascher, has himself said that he doesn't really buy into most of the theories that are presented. In his own words:

My personal take on it is, for one, I don’t think its nearly as visionary as any one of these folks have found. I just see it as sort of a story about juggling the responsibilities of your career and family and as cautionary tale of what may happen if you make the wrong choice. And even maybe looking at the ghosts as these figures that represent fortune or prestige or things that you might be chasing at the expense of paying proper attention to your family.

and

For me, it was, how passionate are they for this idea? How articulate are they and are they able to make me see this film through their eyes? Initially, I didn’t know if this would be a full-length film, or 40 minutes, or where it was going to go. Where it seemed to be a more satisfying kind of experience was, they started to get more personal and talk about The Shining was kind of affecting their lives.

So the film is not about persuading you to believe in anything that's presented. It's about the personalities and psychological inner workings of certain segments of the Kubrick fandom.

As for me personally, I think that some of the theories are more plausible than others. Some I think are obviously wrong, like the dick tray and the Minotaur. Some I think are possibly correct, like the Native American theory, the interpretation about Danny being sexually abused, and the bit about the overturned red VW Bug. And then we have Apollo 11, which I don't believe is the right interpretation, but which I found to be the most fascinating theory in the whole film.

Perhaps a friend of mine summed it up best in an e-mail exchange we had after we had both watched it:

This film is interesting in multiple ways. However, it may be true that you sort of need to be a fan of the film and/or an observer of how serious the Kubrick groupies are, to fully appreciate the film.

Since the film affected me greatly, and impressed me, this documentary was right down my alley.

This film does a good job of highlighting what are the more legitimate theories of possible Kubrick Easter eggs within the film, he also gives the nutjobs enough rope to hang themselves. In other words, the filmmaker realizes that much of this is hogwash, but found it entertaining. (My opinion, obviously.)

I should also note that prior to watching this film, I've watched several hours of YouTube stuff about The Shining, several months ago.

The casual viewer clicking around on Netflix probably wouldn't get the appeal.

Regarding Kubrick, we must admit that he is truly an artist, if his work inspires this kind of attention.