I'd love to know what footage was destroyed during editing. I wonder if it exists somewhere just waiting to show up on the Internet when some dude retires from the business and just says fuck it.

I highly doubt it. The studio took Kubrick's cut and were the ones who made the edits if I'm not mistaken. I suspect that whatever was in that 10-30 minutes (estimates vary) is gone forever.

The documentary "conspiracy of silence" was supposed to be destroyed too, but somebody had a conscience.

Certainly true and a fair point. For what it's worth I do hope that someday someone, even if it's not me, gets to see whatever was in those minutes that were cut. I just don't expect to, it seems certain things like that just vanish down the memory hole and are never seen or heard from again.

You're probably right, it's just something I would love to see. I saw a doc the other day on how they canceled the production of "superman lives". My theory is it was going to be just too bad ass.

It doesn't you'd have to be a Hollywood insider.

I just wanted to say that there are a surprising amount of good documentaries on Netflix. Some others I watched recently:

-Food Matters, explains how it's in the pharmaceutical and medical industry's best interests to keep people malnourished, obese, depressed, etc and that most health problems can be fixed or avoided via diet.

-Cowspiracy, shows that environmental groups are blatantly in bed with the agriculture industry, which is why there is so much screaming and shouting about fossil fuels and silence on livestock raising, which appears to have a larger impact on the climate.

Best Stanley Kubrick film ever.

I love his technique of hidden in plain sight

Most of the movies he made were whistle blowing, they only let him have so many

Yeah I know, big fan of his work especially 2001. Just to read into that opens up a huge can of nasa-go-fuck-yourself worms. He pushed his luck, left us his legacy of beautifully crafted masterpieces of control, power and the art of how film should be.

An obese 70 year old man dying of a heart attack in his sleep after the stress/pressure of producing a 3 hour long major studio film is a conspiracy? Is there any proof to back up a murder accusation?

He showed it to the execs, then he died shortly after. Then shortly after that the film was re-edited into what it is.

That doesn't prove anything, it's just speculation. It's also perfectly reasonable to speculate that the studio execs were not happy with a supposed blood orgy scene which in all likelihood would have resulted in an NC-17 rating and ruined any chance of the film to make money. Editing decisions were made and probably really upset an elderly and obese Kubrick and he died. Im not 100% ruling out murder but an accusation like that requires more than just speculation for me to buy into it.

We will never know

Of course not its a rumor, he wasn't obese he had some extra weight on him.

How is this a conspiracy?

The movie was shot at a Rothschild mansion, it features a secret elite Illuminati Sex cult, 20 minutes of blood orgy footage was edited out. Kubrick died relatively suddenly before the movie came out, its widely been speculated he was murdered for whistleblowing and the edited out portion was specifically the calling out elite secret societies in America and the UK

Well that's intresting. I will read up on it

Watch the movie too if you can, its a great movie.

Will do!

Its a cool movie, but I honestly think Kubrick was more or less messing with people. Mostly it's like a bizarre dream you have every now and again, except in this dream, everyone is rich and kinky. Rich people like kinky is the concept.

If there was a conspiracy, why was he allowed to make the movie, and why was it even released?

Well for starters because it has tons of MKULTRA programming in it that the average person is highly susceptible to. Second in occultism if you intend to perform a ritual with someone you have to get their consent to make them part of the ritual. Hence the need to push out the film, if you want the programming to work it has to be in a format people will willingly be open to. What better format to get someone's passive consent from than movies? Next they edited out the scenes which were scandalous after his health started to wane. Finally the film actually has a gate keeper in the film who keeps the possible implications of the film grounded in fiction. Its just like Hunger Games, you're allowed to let out a little truth if you fill the film with propaganda and mind control. Eyes Wide Shut is filled with mind control and suggestive programming. You have to watch the film from start to finish with an eye for astrotheology and symbolism.

If Kubrick made a film that studios wanted to release, why was he killed?

So he couldn't get the edit that he wanted and so he couldn't tell any tales about the shooting of the film. The film didn't do nearly as well as his others either, largely glossed over by movie critics

A movie studio doesn't need to kill a director in order to welch on his "final cut" provision, lol. They could just recut it how they want and let him try to sue. It happens a lot. How was he going to get the movie distributed if he didn't cut it how they wanted? 95% of major studio films are final cuts ultimately approved by the studios, directors rarely talk about the true levels of studio interference explicitly due to not wanting to bite the hand that feeds.

EWS opening weekend BO was $22 mil, surpassing studio expectations and was Kubrick's highest opening weekend.

The film has since gone on to gross second highest of all his films, behind 2001. It's only considered to be a "disappointment" next to the films of the late 1990s, in the Titanic era.

I would imagine through a different studio or releasing it as an Indy film. They edited the shit out of it after he died.

It's hard to tell what it really means by "the studio edited the shit out of it"

Kubrick was obligated to Warner to utimately deliver an R rated film. A common method of moving the goal posts that directors use is to film over top violence and sexual content that they know will then be removed in order to protect actual essential content. The censors think they've done their jobs, but all they've really done is eliminate footage that the director made in order to distract them away from what he really wanted in final cut.

Its entirely possible he just died of a heart attack at age 70. Its also entirely possible they saw the final cut of the film and had him murdered. Its just one of those things, you'd have to know a lot more than someone on the outside could know.

Why is it "entirely possible" that they had Kubrick murdered when all Warner really had to do was edit it to their own specifications? Was Kubrick really powerful enough to threaten that outcome?

He would then sue, and they would out-lawyer him. We don't even know if he had final cut in his contract to begin with.

Kubrick didn't even want to cast Nicole Kidman, he wanted Jennifer Jason Leigh, but he buckled.

Its entirely possible because he could have really put footage of a blood orgy in at the last minute or without the studio's knowledge then they saw the final cut, called their bosses and their bosses had him axed. Simple and plain, you don't fuck with them. You can have your occam's razor i have my probable cause.

But your "probable cause" is based on a hypothetical you just invented.

Its not invented there's rumors that they cut out 27 minutes of footage from the orgy scene

Yeah, but you're hanging your hat on a rumor. It was "probable cause" a moment ago.

Right and you have no way of disproving any of it or proving your version of events, so why not give it a rest? Yeah?

I don't have to disprove anything, the burden of proof is on the person with the extraordinary claim.

I'm not the one claiming that one of the 20th century's most beloved directors was murdered by Warner Bros. To me it seems like a 70 year old man with an incredibly stressful occupation had a heart attack.

That's actually not a rule of logic

That's nice you have no proof

So, your argument is "unless you can prove he died of a heart attack, he was murdered"

No my argument isn't that

You can't prove that there wasn't a section edited out, can't prove it wasn't what i said it was

Can't prove it wouldn't have been cut for the reasons i said

Can't prove that he wouldn't have upset elites

Can't prove he wasn't murdered

Its not an either-or situation its just your case isn't compelling enough to rule anything out. That's why i said you have occam's razor i have probable cause

But this has been established already more than once, so unless you have something else to say im probably done here.

I never claimed the movie wasn't edited after Kubrick died. In fact, I find it highly plausible that it was.

I just don't buy that he was murdered in order to do it. I don't have to disprove the claim that he was murdered, either, as you aren't even presenting evidence to refute.

You have no reason to be using the phrase "probable cause" as you only have speculation based on no evidence. That isn't a reasonable ground for anything.

Right well then that's the end of this merry-go-round conversation, good day to you sir

Its entirely possible because he could have really put footage of a blood orgy in at the last minute or without the studio's knowledge then they saw the final cut, called their bosses and their bosses had him axed. Simple and plain, you don't fuck with them. You can have your occam's razor i have my probable cause.