Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Electronic Harassment / Mind Control / Subliminal Programing

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-04-2012, 06:40 PM   #41
feralgoose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 617
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
Thanks, very interesting. I'll probably message you on the Shakespeare thing when I get time. Looking forward to anything else you have to contribute about Kubrick too.
Please do I tried messaging you the article uploaded and some other thoughts i don't feel comfortable posting (dont want to take your thread off track or start any bickering because like i said you are spot on you really are brilliant at this)

I said I wasnt convinced by the sync up, but I spoke before I read all your posts and didnt have time to edit what i said fully. The shining and 2001 in particular have many incredible 'coincidences' in their own right so there really is no reason to do what you are showing, and the results posted are proof!I definately think you should look at doing this with his other films a couple i can suggest are the moral brainwashing scene in clockork orange, Pyles murder suicide and the scene i mentioned from FMJ, Eyes wide shut has many.

My interpretation of Kubricks films are that it is a 'layer cake'. The hidden plots from each film seem to build on each other to form kubricks work the greatest story ever told (I think he well and truly outdid shakespeare and any of the 19th-20th century novellists.
2001 is the origin of man, and our true prehistory. Weidner says that Kubrick 'ignores all human history' or something along those lines, in reference to the bone fading to the space station but he doesn't he tells it to us in allegory.He is talking about the angels that perhaps tainted us in our early development. The film includes the story of the fallen angels (mt hermon). What I think you have discovered, or my interpretation, in the first sync up, is that kubrick is confirming his identity as one of these angellic ones. I have considered him to be but I think you may have proved it to me. This also confirms the link between this film and the man who fell to earth (bowie/bowman) and bowie to be among kubrick. It's important to remember they are not all bad they are just like humans they have their good and bad but like us tend to have the bad ones running amok in our world while little publicity goes to the good.

Unfortunately with each film a new layer of the story was added but without the the completion of his work we are left with an unfinished product none of us have a hope in hell of finishing! Even the most kubrick-esque filmmakers are just tribute acts.



The Shakespeare article was written by a friend for David Higham a while ago. It is for an academic text that he was doing for Dee's 4th centenary (of his death) that was celebrated by various academics at Cambidge in 2009. Some know of his work. It claims Edward Kelly, Edward Talbot & Will Shakespeare to be the same person, at different periods of the same persons life and is considerably well sourced and factually written. It is highly contentious because Kelly was said by Crowley to be a previous incarnation of his, yet he did not know this. Most of Crowley's work is based on Kelly and his angelic calls and this underpins all modern 'black' magic. Fortunately i might add or we would all be dead. But if he's right they were just a deception for various foreign governments and Kelly was infact an aristocrat. The US Magician Vincent Bridges who runs the 5th Way Mystery School (avoid if you can) also claims to be Crowley and Kelly. He has invested very heavily in this and it may be another spy game. But he became very angry with him over this work that he did and consequently harassed for a while.


I have no problem with Mossad, MI5 or the CIA. Quite the opposit and they want to keep their eyes on thje ball with the 'angelic' ones who really do exist but can be anywhere. but something bad has been set in motion and is going to be almost uimpossible to stop. So that is my madness if you like. Vincent bridges had been trained by Puharich the mind control expert who lived near him in North Carolina but died suddenly in a fall. Vincent had been investigating laura in Florida who claimed to be channelling aliens (Cassiopeans) there. he lectures on nostradamus on the History Channel buty does not have a word of freench and stole from his co-author the story of hendaye, their book about the end of days. I have always thought he was an agency man really. But after the channelling which happened in the same place where they were training the 9/11 pilots Vincent started attending North carolina Uni, but not as an authorised student. This is where the mastermind of the plot was at the time. 9/11 was not a Mossad plot but the angels would like some to think that. Nor was Lockrbie.Mossad have been framed, supposedly framing someione else. So they do not like that. Vincent is an idiot but they did not know that in the US at the tiome as he was quite convincing, but he has been used too. The same with weidner who was working with bridges. they both have their games and i suspect weidner wouldwant to shut you up since he is vested heavily in this and you are doing good work
__________________
The man without a face, I stay anonymous
The way we live day to day stays monotonous -like your bland sound
But with the weight of the world on top of us we still stand ground
and break down your fascination with the fabrication of the truth
Make use of your imagination in the pursuit of expression
Not as a disguise to hide behind when adressing your brethrens
I reckon the question is this: 'To be or not to be?' - a simple lesson in risk
feralgoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 07:10 PM   #42
wolf367
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I'm not sure I understand the point that is being made. Yes, I can agree that the two films' ending look remarkably similar in structure. However, what are you saying is meant by this?

That the starchild is really an evil creature as Jack is? That each has become a different sort of universal figure? Jack an evil god, and Bowman an angelic starchild?
wolf367 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 08:22 PM   #43
greydove
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 606
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf367 View Post
I'm not sure I understand the point that is being made. Yes, I can agree that the two films' ending look remarkably similar in structure. However, what are you saying is meant by this?

That the starchild is really an evil creature as Jack is? That each has become a different sort of universal figure? Jack an evil god, and Bowman an angelic starchild?
+1 I'm not getting this. Its all very UOOA, and I'm a past master at making abstract connections with symbolism!

What exactly is this all about?
greydove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 09:57 PM   #44
believenothing
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 3,420
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
‘Bull’ moon, you say?

Hmmm...interesting...
From my research of mythology, history, 'fringe' history, religion, and philosophy, the bull or another horned animal (usually with hooves), it's horns, and often times an association with the crescent moon (or some other 'lost' celestial object that appeared as a crescent in Earth's sky) is a common archetype. Like the Enlil picture I linked to above. Moses is sometimes depicted with horns or rays coming out of his head.

I'm not quite sure what it means, but it seems to have something to do with duality. Baphomet's third central horn is another archetype. I think it has something to do with monism and idealism. The 'third eye' and the pagan concept of trinity incorporated into Catholicism. Possibly representing enlightenment or illumination.

The middle 'horn' depicted here also makes a trident. Another archetype (Poseidon, the devil, Shiva, spear of destiny). It also resembles a fleur-de-lis, yet another archetype which is associated with France but did not originate there (it is found in Sumerian and Mesoamerican artwork).

The Epic of Gilgamesh tells a story quite similar to the Hindu Ramayana in many ways (among others). Gilgamesh is an oppressive King, 2/3 god and 1/3 man. The gods create a wild man named Enkidu to distract Gilgamesh so he doesn't oppress his people. Sort of like a 'conscious' or empathy.

Here is a photo of the two:



Two things worth noting, Enkidu has horns. Gilgamesh holds a serpent in his right hand and a lion in his left. Inanna and Ishtar are sometimes depicted that way too. And I know I've seen it in Egyptian artwork as well. These are also elements in Tarot. I won't go into the details, but eventually Enkidu dies and Gilgamesh is distraught and tries to unsuccessfully resurrect him by visiting the underworld (where he also pursues eternal life).

The following is Hindu art depicting the Asuras and Devas churning the ocean of milk:



I doubt it is a coincidence that we live in a 'churning milky way' galaxy. Anyways, Asuras are on the left, Devas on the right. The Devas all are wearing pointed hats with one point on the end. The Asuras have three horns on their heads. There is more symbolism in this, but I won't go into it.

Devas and Asuras are half-brother deities. Devas are 'divine' and there are 33 of them. 'Dev' is an Indo-Iranian/Aryan-European term roughly referring to light. Probably so is devil. The Asuras are materialistic and power-seeking. They defeated the Devas and ruled over them or something like that. The Asuras are made up of the Daitya (giants) and the Danava (sons of the river/water god Danu, likely the same as the Irish Danu and the Sumerian Anu and the sea-faring Israelite 'tribe' of Dan, sometimes associated with the color red).

Just a side note, the pointed hat might be an archetype. Associated in history with gnomes, Mongolians, Jews, etc.

I have this theory that these are clues to the essence of 'humanity' and related to psychopaths.

So in 2001, HAL is an artificial intelligence who is programmed logically. HAL is given a mission to conceal information regarding the Jupiter mission until much later on. This is essentially lying and it breaks HAL, who then decides to kill the crew. When HAL is deactivated it recalls its earliest childhood memories and sings the Daisy song.

There are three monolith encounters. The first encounter 'evolves' the primitive ape-men into using tools which we are shown is used to kill. The killing bone tool fades into a satellite in the future orbiting Earth. Most people are not aware that this is a nuclear satellite. Likely a reference to our war-like state (2001 was also made during the Cold War).

The second monolith points to Jupiter so man develops the technology to travel there. The third monolith does the star child thing.

The Hindu Danava are known as the "bow-wielding" Asuras. Again, along with the Dan 'archetype' is associated with the color red. David Bowman wears a red space suit. The archer 'archetype' I've come to the conclusion is the same thing as the gnostic archon. Which brings me back to the 'bull' moon. It's an arch (or ark).

I've picked up on this stuff but I'm not sure what it all means. I am fairly confident that they are related to each other though. It is some sort of visual message intended for our subconscious. And to be quite honest, I've come the conclusion that we don't believe here. That's part of the message. I could easily be wrong.
believenothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 10:11 PM   #45
feralgoose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 617
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by believenothing View Post
From my research of mythology, history, 'fringe' history, religion, and philosophy, the bull or another horned animal (usually with hooves), it's horns, and often times an association with the crescent moon (or some other 'lost' celestial object that appeared as a crescent in Earth's sky) is a common archetype. Like the Enlil picture I linked to above. Moses is sometimes depicted with horns or rays coming out of his head.

I'm not quite sure what it means, but it seems to have something to do with duality. Baphomet's third central horn is another archetype. I think it has something to do with monism and idealism. The 'third eye' and the pagan concept of trinity incorporated into Catholicism. Possibly representing enlightenment or illumination.

The middle 'horn' depicted here also makes a trident. Another archetype (Poseidon, the devil, Shiva, spear of destiny). It also resembles a fleur-de-lis, yet another archetype which is associated with France but did not originate there (it is found in Sumerian and Mesoamerican artwork).

The Epic of Gilgamesh tells a story quite similar to the Hindu Ramayana in many ways (among others). Gilgamesh is an oppressive King, 2/3 god and 1/3 man. The gods create a wild man named Enkidu to distract Gilgamesh so he doesn't oppress his people. Sort of like a 'conscious' or empathy.

Here is a photo of the two:



Two things worth noting, Enkidu has horns. Gilgamesh holds a serpent in his right hand and a lion in his left. Inanna and Ishtar are sometimes depicted that way too. And I know I've seen it in Egyptian artwork as well. These are also elements in Tarot. I won't go into the details, but eventually Enkidu dies and Gilgamesh is distraught and tries to unsuccessfully resurrect him by visiting the underworld (where he also pursues eternal life).

The following is Hindu art depicting the Asuras and Devas churning the ocean of milk:



I doubt it is a coincidence that we live in a 'churning milky way' galaxy. Anyways, Asuras are on the left, Devas on the right. The Devas all are wearing pointed hats with one point on the end. The Asuras have three horns on their heads. There is more symbolism in this, but I won't go into it.

Devas and Asuras are half-brother deities. Devas are 'divine' and there are 33 of them. 'Dev' is an Indo-Iranian/Aryan-European term roughly referring to light. Probably so is devil. The Asuras are materialistic and power-seeking. They defeated the Devas and ruled over them or something like that. The Asuras are made up of the Daitya (giants) and the Danava (sons of the river/water god Danu, likely the same as the Irish Danu and the Sumerian Anu and the sea-faring Israelite 'tribe' of Dan, sometimes associated with the color red).

Just a side note, the pointed hat might be an archetype. Associated in history with gnomes, Mongolians, Jews, etc.

I have this theory that these are clues to the essence of 'humanity' and related to psychopaths.

So in 2001, HAL is an artificial intelligence who is programmed logically. HAL is given a mission to conceal information regarding the Jupiter mission until much later on. This is essentially lying and it breaks HAL, who then decides to kill the crew. When HAL is deactivated it recalls its earliest childhood memories and sings the Daisy song.

There are three monolith encounters. The first encounter 'evolves' the primitive ape-men into using tools which we are shown is used to kill. The killing bone tool fades into a satellite in the future orbiting Earth. Most people are not aware that this is a nuclear satellite. Likely a reference to our war-like state (2001 was also made during the Cold War).

The second monolith points to Jupiter so man develops the technology to travel there. The third monolith does the star child thing.

The Hindu Danava are known as the "bow-wielding" Asuras. Again, along with the Dan 'archetype' is associated with the color red. David Bowman wears a red space suit. The archer 'archetype' I've come to the conclusion is the same thing as the gnostic archon. Which brings me back to the 'bull' moon. It's an arch (or ark).

I've picked up on this stuff but I'm not sure what it all means. I am fairly confident that they are related to each other though. It is some sort of visual message intended for our subconscious. And to be quite honest, I've come the conclusion that we don't believe here. That's part of the message. I could easily be wrong.
Actually the monolith appears 4 times or arguably 5. Weidner was right this is kubricks great alchemical work, but that is just one narrative as it is a multi layered story. The 4 great hermetic ages of man and their transformative stages is what are shown in the scenes featuring the monolith.

You are spot on as well with some of your links. Bow-man in particular. As I have said this relates to david bowie


Bowie won a Saturn Award for his acting in this film. In the short story that 2001 was sourced from, the planet the monolith points to is Saturn not Jupiter. I wouldn't be curious of this coincidence if Bowies acting wasn't so effing awful
__________________
The man without a face, I stay anonymous
The way we live day to day stays monotonous -like your bland sound
But with the weight of the world on top of us we still stand ground
and break down your fascination with the fabrication of the truth
Make use of your imagination in the pursuit of expression
Not as a disguise to hide behind when adressing your brethrens
I reckon the question is this: 'To be or not to be?' - a simple lesson in risk

Last edited by feralgoose; 05-04-2012 at 10:13 PM.
feralgoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 11:00 PM   #46
psketti
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,789
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greydove View Post
+1 I'm not getting this. Its all very UOOA, and I'm a past master at making abstract connections with symbolism!

What exactly is this all about?

I don't get ANY of it until he points it out


Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post








Didn't see this at all. Now it's as plain as day.

I find the people that can see these things, quite fascinating.
psketti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 11:22 PM   #47
believenothing
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 3,420
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feralgoose View Post
Bowie won a Saturn Award for his acting in this film. In the short story that 2001 was sourced from, the planet the monolith points to is Saturn not Jupiter. I wouldn't be curious of this coincidence if Bowies acting wasn't so effing awful
Saturn and it's rings are an archetype too with all sorts of crazy theories. I don't know if I believe any of them, but they are interesting. It sure does pop up quite a bit and it might have something to do with the winged disc archetype. Or it might not.

I think they changed Saturn to Jupiter (if this is the real reason) for visual FX reasons. Saturn and it's rings would have been difficult to re-create with the FX capabilities from back then.

I read enough info to convince me that the Lucifer project of igniting Jupiter with Galileo was very real. (Jupiter is also ignited into a sun that warms up Europa in the 2010 sequel novel). There was a dark spot visible from amateur telescopes around the time that Galileo entered it's atmosphere. NASA never explained it. Probably because they knew what caused it. And Cassini will meet a similar fate into Saturn where it has more material and a better chance at causing a reaction.

Anyways, thanks for pointing that out about Bowie. I never would have thought. It makes perfect sense. To be fair, his acting improved as time went on (I thought he made an okay Tesla in The Prestige).

I've never seen the film or read the book, so going off a synopsis they appear to be very different from each other. One difference mentioned in the film says the character is imprisoned and eventually comes to realize that the prison is derelict and the door unlocked. That reminds me of a Koran story about Solomon. Solomon commands demons (Jinn in the Koran) who continue to obey him even after he is dead. It's only when worms eat through the staff holding him up and his corpse falls do they realize this. Which it mentions they would have had they been able to see the unseen. And in this movie/book there is apparently a part where x-rays destroy or blind his extra-sensory alien vision. Reminds me of a re-occurring theme in mythology where 'muse' like beings are cut off from some sort of a god head.

The character also sounds kind of St. Germain-like. St. Germain had unknown and curious origins, was described as an 'odd creature', carried around a miniature portrait of him mom described as in 'strange dress', amassed quite a bit of wealth, and used it for influence in the upper class society all over Europe. George Soros kinda looks like his portrait.

Now I was thinking about Kubrick in general, and how his films all seem to have a universal theme which this quote from him basically sums up IMO:

Quote:
Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved—that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure.
This is from a review for the Shining from the NYT in 1972:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...k-profile.html

From the same interview:

Quote:
"'2001' would give a little insight into my metaphysical interests," he explains. "I'd be very surprised if the universe wasn't full of an intelligence of an order that to us would seem God-like. I find it very exciting to have a semi-logical belief that there's a great deal to the universe we don't understand, and that there is an intelligence of an incredible magnitude outside the earth. It's something I've become more and more interested in. I find it a very exciting and satisfying hope."

Why?

"Well, I mean, one would hate to think that this was it."

How did Kubrick come to such a pessimistic vision of mankind? "From observation," he replies laconically. "Knowing what has happened in the world, seeing the people around me." He says it has nothing to do with anything that's happened to him personally, nor with his Jewish background. "I mean, it's essentially Christian theology anyway, that view of man."
The journalist then goes on to say "He's wrong" and says this "concept of man as essentially evil is straight Manichean" which he then goes on to say was a "perverse" heresy. What he doesn't say is that's his opinion. Manichean is a form of Christian Gnosticism with elements of Zoroastrianism. The core theology is pretty much the same as other forms of Gnosis. Those who have done their homework know that it is very much a Christian theology. Early Christianity was gnostic. It got corrupted.
believenothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 11:29 PM   #48
believenothing
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 3,420
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default



Maybe I'm going nuts, but that bed and head board remind me of St Peters Square in Vatican City:



Which resembles a keyhole:



Which also sort of reminds me of the monolith 'pyramid' with the sun on top.

Maybe I'm reading into this way too much
believenothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 02:13 AM   #49
marisabia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: around the mountain
Posts: 797
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Red face

I just had to interject, before continuing reading, that Barry Lyndon is by far, my absolute favorite Stanley Kubrick movie, the soundtrack, and costuming were superb, dialog, it was a cinematic triumph.
Okay, just had to say that.
marisabia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 02:13 PM   #50
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

^ Will respond to some of the above posts after I get this next bit out of the way...

A few people have mentioned that while they see the similarities between the endings to both films, they're not convinced that they're directly connected.

Since I think it's critical to understand that this really is the case in order to begin to see what Kubrick is doing, I'll try to make the argument as compellingly as possible (for now).

All esoteric implications aside, at the very least, for any fan, the prospect of the exhiliratingly kick-ass realisation that you haven't finished watching 2001: A Space Odyssey yet awaits....

I'm not attempting to analyse the below scenes fully here; just putting the parallel endings into a very brief context, from the perspective of 2001 alone...




After encountering the monolith in the orbit of Jupiter, Bowman goes on a psychedelically-charged 'inner journey'...



His space capsule then arrives in a lavish, antique-furnished suite or...ahem...Hotel room of some kind.



Looking through the window of his space capsule, he sees himself standing in the room...



His perspective is then instantly transferred to this version of himself...




He begins to explore the room...



Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:31 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 02:34 PM   #51
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

After exploring the bathroom, he moves back towards the main room and through the doorway sees an old man eating a meal at the table...



The old man turns around, rises, approaches the doorway and realises nobody is there. Bowman's perspective has again been instantly transferred to this older version of himself...



He returns to the table...



And resumes his meal...




After accidentally knocking a wine glass from the table (which shatters on the floor), he turns...




...to see an even older, seemingly dying, version of himself lying in bed...

[B]

Once again his perspective is instantly transferred to this new version of himself...



The monolith then appears at the other end of the room...



He reaches out to touch it...



The next shot is the 'starchild embryo' hovering above the bed, the final time the film directly syncs up and interlocks with The Shining, theme music swelling as the hidden 'twin film' approaches it's awe-inspiring (horrifying?), synergistic conclusion...


Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:32 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 03:12 PM   #52
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
The next shot is the 'starchild embryo' hovering above the bed, the final time the film directly syncs up and interlocks with The Shining, theme music swelling as the 'film' approaches it's awe-inspiring, synergistic conclusion...

I mentioned earlier that the design of the above two shots is a perfect match once the bed in 2001 is turned vertically to stand up against the wall.

To begin to highlight this more clearly, we need to first superimpose the oval-shaped chandelier on the ceiling in the foreground over the identical, but less visible one seen through the barred windows above the photo board in the Gold Room:



Now we can see that the two images correspond a little more directly in the positioning of the oval above the white area in both compositions:



As shown previously, just before the starchild embryo appears on the bed, the old man Bowman reaches out to touch the monolith. This wide shot of the design behind the bed should begin to make the comparison even more striking...


Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:32 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 03:25 PM   #53
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

This should make it unmistakable:



All we need do now is tilt that bed up vertically, and figure out how to account for everything so that the designs in both films are seen for the perfect match they are.

Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:32 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 03:46 PM   #54
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
All we need do now is tilt that bed up vertically, and figure out how to account for everything so that the designs in both films are seen for the perfect match they are.
In the above-posted shot breakdown of Bowman's experience once he entered the 'hotel' room, we saw how his perspective progressively shifted from one version of himself to another based on a series of sudden new perceptions.

Just after the shot below, the starchild embryo is seen on the bed in place of the 'dying' Bowman who is now extending a frail finger out towards the monolith...



I think the implication here is that the next stage of perspective transference once the starchild embryo manifests on the bed is for it to begin to merge with the monolith itself, and the necessary adjustment for that to happen is for the bed to pivot vertically and match it's alignment.

Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:32 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 04:02 PM   #55
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post


...the next stage of perspective transference once the starchild embryo manifests on the bed is for it to begin to merge with the monolith itself, and the necessary adjustment for that to happen is for the bed to pivot vertically and match it's alignment.
Excuse the shoddy photoshop jobs coming up - I started to clean them up and figured 'why bother?' once the point has been made...


Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:33 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 04:20 PM   #56
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

There's still a way to go before the vertical mattress with the starchild embryo from 2001 on the left, matches the design of the entrance to the Gold Room in The Shining on the right (photoshopped into the same room here in order to illustrate the similarities and differences):



Note the features that do match: the oval shaped headboard of the bed, now that it's tilted to face downwards, precisely mirrors the oval shaped chandelier at the top of the entrance to the Gold Room. The gold bedspread and the gold curtains, carpet and wall between the bars at the top of the Gold Room entrance are all a match. The central white area in the middle of the bed and the middle of the Gold Room entrance (despite being different shapes which I believe is intentional and highly significant) also sync.

The only thing preventing the separate images from the two films being identical now is the bars and the black bordering that surrounds the central white area from The Shining's Gold Room entrance, which is not present on the gold mattress in 2001.

Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:33 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 04:41 PM   #57
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post


The only thing preventing the separate images from the two films being identical now is the bars and the black bordering that surrounds the central white area from the The Shining's Gold Room entrance, which is not present on the gold mattress in 2001.


- It's the monolith itself, being imprinted onto the bed.


Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:33 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 04:44 PM   #58
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default


Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:33 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 05:02 PM   #59
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default



When we see the slow zoom-in shot on the Gold Room at the climax of The Shining, this is the perspective of the monolith itself as it imprints itself on Bowman's gold bed and envelops the starchild.

Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 05:33 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 05:31 PM   #60
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
When we see the slow zoom-in shot on the Gold Room at the climax of The Shining, this is the perspective of the monolith itself as it imprints itself on Bowman's gold bed and envelops the starchild.
The implications of that are profound and disturbing because it totally reverses the popular impression fostered by the ending of 2001 that the starchild had merged with the monolith and evolved into a higher state of consciousness.

What Kubrick reveals to us with the overlaid imagery at the end of The Shining is that the real meaning of the ending to 2001 is the horrific reverse: the monolith enters the starchild, or, in other words possesses and imprisons Bowman (/Jack).

The 'prison bars', and perhaps also white's transition from round to square, are now fully accounted for too:



A lot more to say about all this but will pause for the moment in the hope that it's been somewhat established that both movies are indeed facets of the one much greater, hidden work.

Last edited by size_of_light; 06-04-2012 at 07:16 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:06 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.