You forgot to mention that the ending was changed after he died.

It wasn't that the ending changed, it was that they edited 23 14 minutes out of the movie that no one has only a very small handful of people have ever seen.

Could you elaborate?

They sacrifice a human bean

A real human bean?

Mr Bean.

I don't think i could stomach that.

Yeah that's why they sign the contract and their brains become all fucked because they partake in those rituals.

The movie that was pre-screened for a WB executive and Tom and Nicole was 2 hours and 59 minutes long. The one released to the public was 2 hours and 45 minutes and no one other than those people and Stanley's editing assistant knows what is in those missing 14 minutes.

(Edited my original post. The number 23 was stuck in my head as the amount cut but it was actually 14 mins.)

The...number..23?

:s

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_enigma

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/nov/20/features.weekend

Good article

In the course of reading that article, I knew the interview was bullshit when I got to this quote from it: "a good-humoured atmosphere prevails on the set."

Did not really read much of it. Good to know.

they edited 14 minutes out of the movie

That's almost certainly not the whole story. All this tells us is that the Kubrick version was 14 minutes longer than the publicly released cut. However, it's likely - inevitable, even - that cutting room floor material, rejected by Kubrick, was added to help make the censored studio version more "coherent". This means that far more than 14 minutes of the Kubrick original would have been removed.

Being that his attention to detail was unmatched in Hollywood and he was known to change the "final" cut of a movie up to and AFTER release, either way it's safe to say that Eyes Wide Shut is (with almost 100% certainty) NOT the film he intended us to see.

I think it is possible that Kubrick made Eyes Wide Shut as a form of revenge against Scientology and revenge against Tom Cruise. So maybe Scientology whacked him. They're crazy enough and power mad enough to try I bet.

EWS put Tom Cruise in all these situations and scenes with his own wife that might have truly under minded his marriage to Kidman. Poor ole Tom also has to walk down the street while being catcalled 'faggot' by street kids. His reaction is priceless as if Kubrick didn't tell him about the scene before hand.

The movie ends in the toy store with their daughter, and if you pay close attention you notice that the two door men from the 'orgy' are there too. And then we no longer see the daughter while Tom and Nicole casually walk away with "eyes wide shut" while their daughter gets abducted. Just like how Kubrick's daughter was "abducted" by Scientology...

You can go down the rabbit hole with that film if you aren't careful there is so much fodder for discussion. Some of the color schemes alone (royal blue and gold etc.) can spark theories, much less Kidman dropping her dress to the floor exactly like the prostitutes at the orgy.

You're right. He could have just been thinking "I'll make a film that will have them talking about me for centuries". Just like the sly smile of the Mona Lisa or having Mary Magdalene lean to the right a little for visual 'tension' in The Last Supper.

Also the holiday lights! Whenever there are holiday lights in a scene, they're in the "real world" meaning the fake world that the elite create for the sheeple. When there are no holiday lights in the scene, this is the elite world, or the world where stuff behind the scenes happen! There are quite a few analysis articles out there, but the one on vigilant citizen is my favorite!

This was typical actor treatment for Kubrick and Cruise had to have known it. While this is worth wondering about I think he developed the technology to hoax the moon landing and was a loose end in conjunction with the jab at TPTB in EWS it was dunzo time for him. You'll notice none of his family has ever questioned his death publicly. They know better.

Wait, you use the fact they don't publicly question his death as proof that it was in fact a murder? I mean, isn't it more sensible that they never publicly question it because they don't feel there is anything to publicly question?

I'm not a fucking psychologist. I'm an irrational conspiracy theorist.

MRW

I laughed

Heh, I love this response. Sincerely and truly.

Thanks. We can't take it all seriously and believe with hope and faith but we can find things plausible right?

Troll^

Couldn't let that nigga finish a.i.

Of course he was. He's just lucky he didn't get "cancer".

Very possible, considering he was 71 years old and the majority of cancers occur in people over the age of 60.

The orgy scene in the movie actually took place in in the Rothchild mansion. I don't really believe he was murdered if they allowed him to film his movie there.

They didn't own it by that point. I think it was owned by the Maharishi foundation when filming was done.

Or perhaps he was murdered after they realized what the scene was about.

He was definitely murdered.

Eyes wide shut revealed too much about the nature of the occult societies to too many people for him to be allowed to continue making films and risk even more damage.

There are many films about occult societies, and they don't involve the director being murdered shortly after. If it was so bad, why did "they" allow it to be released? Surely they would have the power to stop that from happening somehow. And the film showed nothing about the occult groups that really stands out as being revealing, so what's the issue?

There are many films about occult societies, and they don't involve the director being murdered shortly after.

Documentaries maybe. Not mainstream films shown in theaters directed by one of the insiders.

If it was so bad, why did "they" allow it to be released?

Good question, probably lack of oversight given the fact he was already an insider. SURELY he wouldn't be that stupid they probably assumed.

And the film showed nothing about the occult groups that really stands out as being revealing

If you honestly think that then you probably weren't paying close enough attention during the film.

I didn't see anything beyond the usual sex, casually homicidal, dressing up and secret partying of the rich and powerful. I'm sure he put more in though. Is there anything that stood out for you that could be said to be truly revealing?

3 part series, part 1:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubriks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-i/

That link/three articles misses a lot of other things to be honest, but it's a good place to start.

If you honestly think that then you probably weren't paying close enough attention during the film.

If it requires close attention then there is no problem. So what is your point?

They were worried that the public would give two shits about some "number 23" level theories that a movie clearly intended for entertainment was actually an exposé?

It's possible... but you're really stretching.

I agree with /u/spartyjason - the movie doesn't seem exceptionally problematic for any imaginable secret society. You can really only speculate that something more significant was removed until it hopefully surfaces (or that his actions outside this film further indicated he was a problem). It isn't odd at all for 15 minutes to be removed from a three hour film. You can be suspicious that those 15 minutes were "kept in secret" but that isn't really that odd either. There are infinite possibilities for material a studio might take the liberty of purging from existence, if given the opportunity. If you think they all involve revealing illuminati secrets, then I fear you aren't being all that creative. I could make up line-crossing material for EWS hours.

And of course, there's Occam's favorite: the possibility that it was simply lost. Non-controversial "lost" film surfaces all the time.

Documentaries maybe. Not mainstream films shown in theaters directed by one of the insiders.

American phsycho, Wicker man, fight club, the man who would be king, chinatown... any number of movies involving mafia, government, freemasons, orders of this and that... hell even clockwork orange made by the very same Kubrick 30+ years ago.

This is true but doesn't necessarily detract from my point.

This is true but doesn't necessarily detract from my point.

Of course not... don't let simple facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory that's driven by wild possibilities and end's in a 70 year old filmmaker being "definitely murdered" because he "revealed too much about the nature of the occult societies".

I've seen it multiple times, because I was so intrigued the first time that I wanted to delve into what he was doing. Believe me, I've paid very close attention to the film. However, I suppose we just have different viewpoints, makes the world go around I suppose.

It's ridiculous for this post to be downvoted.

There are many films about occult societies

You mean like The DaVinci Code and National Treasure? /rolls eyes

If it was so bad, why did "they" allow it to be released?

Minus ~14 minutes.

You take that back! National Treasure is...well, a national treasure!

fell asleep at the movie theatre during the sequel NT2. that fcuking exciting.

it rather depends what is in those missing 14minutes and what effect they have on the story as told in kubricks cut, doesnt it. i wonder if he had his heart attack after the studio told him they were recutting his movie

And here we are at the heart of it...it depends on some thing that we cannot, and likely will never be able to, confirm one way or the other. So instead of assuming it IS some shadow conspiracy, I elect to remain unconvinced either way. Sure, could be. Seems unlikely though.

welcome to /r/harmlesspeculation

Well, Roman Polanski did a pretty adept take on rich and powerful and secret society Satanists in The Ninth Gate, and he's still avoiding extradition.

True, but IIRC it didn't show occult rituals in lavish mansions.

Yes it did, towards the end of the film when the priestess gets strangled in front of the cult, in her lavish French mansion. All high society, and Polanski is still high profile.

hes a jew and part of the cult. duh

He was definitely murdered. Eyes wide shut revealed too much about the nature of the occult societies to too many people for him to be allowed to continue making films and risk even more damage.

Like what exactly? What part of that movie hasn't been said before 1 million times in public, or been put on screen before, or written about... where's the groundbreaking scandal that shook the world enough to the point he was "definitely murdered"?

Like what exactly? What part of that movie hasn't been said before 1 million times in public, or been put on screen before, or written about... where's the groundbreaking scandal that shook the world enough to the point he was "definitely murdered"?

It's the symbolism in the film. A fraction of the depth of the symbolism is analyzed in a three part series:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubriks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-i/

Confucius stated that "signs and symbols rule the world not words nor laws" and the SYMBOLISM/SIGNS in the film make it what it is. The article linked above is only a fraction of what is in the film symbolically.

It's the symbolism in the film.

He was murdered over symbolism? What about all of the other films throughout history that use the same or similar symbolism to show the dangers and intrigue of secret societies?

The one thing that's not clear to me about this theory is that why they have allowed the film to be released at all? Sure they might have removed some important scenes but the overall movie still presents a lot of information about these guys. Why not just never release the movie altogether?

As I told someone else, 'they' occasionally do make mistakes. Kubrick was a trusted insider, they probably didn't think he was going to make the film as revealing as it was.

This however doesn't make fully sense. 'They' screened the movie before it was released and took out the crucially important scenes, and THEN released it. I'm asking why they released it after they cut out crucial bits. The movie still has..... I am repeating myself here. You honestly dont understand me?

And at the time they didn't think the internet would be what it is today. It was alot easier to forget things before google

He was 70 years old. He also did everything! Given he had not made a movie in many years and pushed himself to the pace he had done in the past. It is possible he exhausted himself to death. Also, dealing with the sociopathic scum that run the studios, it is possible they increased his stress level to an all time high.

What we know is: he made a film about secret societies and he died, reportedly of a heart attack, before it was released, meaning that the film was edited without his supervision.

Kubrick was 70 and overweight. His IMDB biography notes him as being a 'heavy chain smoker in his youth' who quit in the 70s, but continued to smoke when stressed out on set. He was always going to be at risk of a heart attack. He was also a famously obsessive auteur who wanted to control every aspect of his films. The released version of EWS was 2 hours 45 minutes long. The studios probably cut it because it was a monster of a film and, without Kubrick, they were free to meddle as they saw fit.

All of the conspiracy theories about Kubrick seem to be nothing more than unsubstantiated conjecture. Why is Kubrick assumed to be the good guy? The internet is awash with claims that the 'Illuminati' have a hand in film, TV, and pop music. If Bieber or Miley Cyrus starred in an Eyes Wide Shut-esque music video, everyone would interpret it as the Illuminati sending out a message, or something.

Your theory presumes that Kubrick is a good guy trying to expose occult societies. 'Illuminati' is the standard conspiracy theory bogey man.

I'm saying that you've taken three facts (the subject of the movie, Kubrick's death, and the posthumous editing of the movie) and constructed an unsubstantiated narrative around them

If he was involved in hoaxing the moon landings, he was probably forced to do it. The movie "Room 237" highlights the fact that Kubrick included allusions to the moon landing. His movie 2001: A Space Odyssey also involves a conspiracy about the moon.

Again, if Kubrick was involved in hoaxing the moon landings, then he was only involved in faking the videos. That's not to say that mankind did not go to the moon, simply that the official narrative may not have been entirely accurate.

Edit: Also, he was definitely murdered. Recall the heart attack gun which was declassified in 1975.

Edit 2: Room 237, not 213 as corrected by /u/rbslilpanda. Thanks!

Room 237... Not 213.

In the novel it's Room 217. Always wondered why Kubrick changed it.

One Theory:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=distance+between+earth+and+moon+in+miles

Another Theory:

2x3x7=42

http://auschwitz.org/en/history/auschwitz-calendar/year-1942

Haha nice

Also "The Shining".

also the kid sweater

Room 237 freaks me out. I've watched it about 6 times.

I love the look on Barry Goldwater's face in the pic on the heart attack gun page. It looks like he want to say I've got to get me one of these.

everyone who believes this conspiracy also asserts that Stanley was involving in hoaxing the moon landings

That's a mighty broad brush you paint with, Picasso. I believe Kubrick was taken out but don't believe that he was involved with NASA.

Actually in the original credits of 2001: A Space Oddyssey it lists many NASA engineers and scientists that he had at his disposal during the 3 years he filmed the movie, which are also conveniently the years that lead up to the Apollo TV missions. Watch Kubricks Oddyssey

It's almost like he'd want some reliable information in portraying a science fiction. You know, like how Saving Private Ryan had a load of historians involved, in order to make it look reasonably authentic, so the average consumer doesn't break immersion.

How exactly do you know? There's a problem with believing NASA: Their funding.

Fun fact: he died 666 days before 1/1/2001...

But according to End of Days, it's really 999...

Just wanted to repost this comment of mine for all to see as the original comment I replied to is below the threshold for my setting and so maybe for others. Plus its neat/ kinda scary.

my comment: Here's the thing. You can simply inject someone with enough potassium(not hard at all to get a hold of) to cause a heart attack and it is A. not usually looked for, B. Not easily discovered in autopsies. After learning this in school it brought a new level of wtf/hmmmm into my life for all suspicious/higher profile deaths of this type.

so bananas

"All Stanley's life he said, 'Never, ever go near power. Don't become friends with anyone who has real power. It's dangerous.' ..."

http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001/

Alex Jones had Vivian Kubrick on a while back and she said she thinks they killed him too.

Just want to add that, even though this is a credible theory to me, another Oscar Award winning director, Sydney Pollack (Out of Africa, Tootsie, The Firm, etc..), acted in this film. Obviously, he wanted to get in on the eye-opening project, but didn't wind up dead. Until 2008, anyway.

Well he made many controversial films in his day, and if you don't think that the guy who directed Out of Africa, Tootsie, The Firm, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, etc... was a part of that same society, then I think you are mistaken. Major Hollywood player.

Take a look at Kubrick's outer appearance throughout the years. He looked more and more rugged towards his end. It's safe to say that his movies got clearer and clearer in their statements. A Clockwork Orange seemed highly experimental and metaphorical. He was going through changes when he got higher up in the industry. So it's not very unlikely that he was introduced to some of the more wicked folks that rule the industry and won't meet everyone. Kubrick was different. He was a highly intelligent man with a fairly deep understanding of the world to some degree, even though he might not have grasped it in his early years of filmmaking. So he might have been invited into the inner circles and rituals, but couldn't decide to fully devote himself to that mindset. If he decided to tell a story or two about those circles he was invited into, I'm sure they'd turn hostile towards him, even if he faked the moon landing depictions for the very same people (if fake, it's highly likely he helped out and would consequently be invited into the responsible power circles he proofed himself to before!).

Like a lot of the late great director’s movies, Eyes was shot in total secrecy, its sets at Pinewood Studios in England locked tighter than that CIA vault Cruise dangled into in Mission: Impossible. Whatever the film’s married costars were up to inside Kubrick’s sealed soundstages — one (false) rumor had Cruise wearing a dress — the world would have to wait to find out.

EW - Behind the scenes of ''Eyes Wide Shut'', July 23 1999

More:

Secrets hidden in films of Stanley Kubrick - 1/5

A funny thing happened on the way to the moon

A Clockwork Orange seemed highly experimental and metaphorical.

based on twenty chapters of a book, minus the 21st chapter that was deliberately left out of the US version of the book.

Relevant podcast

Any more info of who was around him or what he consumed? Did he just die in his sleep? Did he vomit befor the heart attack? Was he sick and for how long before the attack? Any pictures released of the death scene? People clean up?

Garlic or nicotine will do the trick.

Your evidence is very convincing but I'm still undecided.

I assume so, yes.

He was becoming a serious thorn in the side of a wider cabal that included players at NASA and their Saturn V rocket manufacturer that banked on a "successful moon walk". The film Napoleon was cut by producers after he had researched him and his wars for over two years. The material he was going to expose in Napoleon (and his funders) had to be shut down. He was pissed about that and later made EWS to expose this elite group even further - and enough was enough.

Btw, on the moon hoax, you have opportunity (Kubrick's unreal 2001-level effects with backlit scotchlite making space scene's look incredibly real) and motive (Saturn V rocket sales post-moon landing to worldwide military, etc). The Shining Code 2.0 lays it out perfectly on the moon hoax, and is actually much better than Room 237 imo. This was a big one to get over the cognitive dissonance on. Nevertheless, truth always prevails.

Incidentally, I am not really a fan of Spielberg (666 Boyalston Boy), and have always been uncomfortable with his proximity to Kubrick at the end of his career and the horseshit job he did on AI after K's death. Not saying the guy isn't talented, he just doesn't even come close to holding a candle to Stan, period.

I just watched that documentary you posted, The Shining Code 2.0 and while there were a lot of good points made, and I especially find the Room 237 and the TV scene making completely sense, there were too many things that were a stretch. And I got tired of hearing "the number 11 this is a reference to the Apollo 11 mission". The guy must have said this line 800 times now. It's also weird in some points where it points out something but never explains what it means to a full extent. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy....Apollo 11 work and no play makes Stanley Kubrick a dull boy... ok so what does this mean? The scene just cuts off there.

What I also found a REAL STRETCH was how the cars in front of the hotel was supposed to represent the date of the Apollo mission, they underline the cars in a very random way. Splitting up a row of cars in 2 colors for no reason.

One of my friends passed away a few weeks ago, at the age of 21, with no prior medical complications, during her sleep. Don't think she was unearthing any secret society, though. I guess in that situation, there's no conspiracy?

Skye McCole Bartusiak !?

Her mother, Helen McCole Bartusiak, told CNN that Skye had been suffering from epileptic seizures in recent days.

Don't know the person, sorry.

17 link karma 13 comment karma redditor for 1 month

He died of a heart attack.

"heart attack"

His heart was attacked by an assassin.

"kek"

Where is the proof it wasn't a heart attack?

Genuinely asking, I just checked Wikipedia to see how he died and didn't research any further.

Here's the thing. You can simply inject someone with enough potassium(not hard at all to get a hold of) to cause a heart attack and it is A. not usually looked for, B. Not easily discovered in autopsies. After learning this in school it brought a new level of wtf/hmmmm into my life for all suspicious/higher profile deaths of this type.

So just because it's possible means it happened? So no source nor proof?

If there was proof it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory.

who and why would still be relevant or of interest.

we know JFK was shot to death, some say LHO did it, some say LHO was very tied up with CIA/Cuban types, some say LHO was a lone wolf. some say multiple people killed JFK.

No one else is making the difference clear: This is a theory, not a fact.

Therefor, by the rules of theory, people need to be willing to accept it might not be true. Yet no one here is doing that. It's a very important part of "theory": It has to be falsifiable. To many here, this (and other "theories") are not falsifiable: They have to be true. That's not how theory works.

Don't use the word if you don't actually use the word. "Theories" are expected to be tested and evidenced, and dismissed if they don't fit up to the tests. Not re-tested over and over and over to try to illicit different results.

Kubrick might have died naturally (he wasn't exactly the healthiest looking man), but he might have been killed. People don't deserve downvotes simply for asking relevant questions. By downvoting those people, you're really just contributing to a form of subversive censorship.

The comment you replied to didn't give any impression of certainty, just a possible attack vector. You are fighting an imaginary battle.

K.

Correct. thank you.

I knew a guy who was 41 years old. About the same size as Kubrick. Bigger guy. One day he went water skiing. He bailed, wiped out, and the boat swung around to get him back in. He climbed up, dismounted his skis, sat back, and took a deep breath with a huge smile on his face. Then his eyes rolled up behind his head and he died right there. Massive heart attack. Preventable too, had he been seeing doctors regularly and getting check ups.

I'm just saying: Heart attacks can and do sneak up on you. Easy. Really easy. Death doesn't care about fame.

Like I said, death don't care about fame. It could've happened that way for Kubrick. Heart-attack-in-your-sleep is actually a nice way to go, and not very uncommon.

Not discounting that he may have been assassinated, but simply saying that occam's razor allows for him to have just died natural causes.

Yup, me too apparently, because I'm the only reason you "know for sure". Wonderful logic you've got there.

Biology is so logical, and a heart attack is biology. It's not a human affair, so your reasoning really doesn't apply to that version of events at all.

I'm not saying if I think he was assassinated or not, I'm saying I don't know. That's an okay opinion to have, no one's drawing lines on the sand here but you.

But the official story is biologically sound without needing to assume any assassins or motives, ergo under Occam's razor, it's reasonable if the conclusion of a particular person is that he simply died of natural causes, because it requires fewer assumptions than the alternative theory.

Note: This is not to state Occam's razor ever proves anything - it doesn't, at all. It simply says it's not an unreasonable conclusion. Again, you're approaching this as if it had to be one or the other. There's in-betweens too. There's wildly different too. It's not black and white, yes or no.

We're done here.

only in hollywood

Never said it happened. It's just information.

he was jewish. he crashed all 2001 set after film completed in 1968. america put a man on moon in 1969. some says kubricks set was where moon-hoax filmed.

eyes wide shut is about illuminati. i think movie's scenes about solemity is real.

it could be possible but who knows???? illuminati know.

after all, the real question is.... why a jewish organization kills a jewish?

user for 24 days

You guys are trying way too hard...

nothing but negative karma..

what is the difference between my entry and others entries?

• http://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs

did i marked?

did i marked?

No comprendo.

In the novel it's Room 217. Always wondered why Kubrick changed it.

Thanks. We can't take it all seriously and believe with hope and faith but we can find things plausible right?