Additional points I forgot to put in the vid, plus response to comments (updated) - The video author has not updated the description, nor responded to comments claiming I'm the author. Seems happy to let that assumption by some viewers continue. - Good point by some in the comments section here. The vid is heavily linked to my work right at the beginning and in description on nothing more than a single continuity error observation. This is clearly an excuse to boost algorithm recognition of the video by associating it to my vids and audience. - The Wendy Theory not only mismatches the larger themes of Kubrick's filmography, but has no correlation with the other well known themes in the movie (Native American genocide, Gold standard, the hotel as the United States, certain scenes being within Jack's head as he writes etc). - For those who say that interpretations like the Wendy Theory aren't meant to be plausible, just "fun" ...The now common practice of deliberately positing "fun" ideas about themes that could have been put in a given film, but weren't, and disguising those ideas as actual interpretation ... is a disservice to genuine film study and to viewers. - For those who claim that I come across as angry or jealous in this presentation or claiming that I am being abusive of the Wendy theory author. This is denial and projection on their part. At no point in this video do I swear, raise my voice or call the WT author names. This was a relaxed presentation, maybe a bit too relaxed being that I rambled a bit rather than doing a pre-scripted debunk. And, as I said in the video, there are lots of other videos out there offering theories on the Shining that have many more views than the Wendy Theory, but I don't bother debunking those because the authors didn't confuse their work with mine in any way. Here are some examples that I haven't even watched, but invite you to do so and make up your own mind on ... ruclips.net/video/TmYcoozFYnU/видео.html 1.7 million views ruclips.net/video/dv8KroxoAhk/видео.html 1.5 million views ruclips.net/video/zRxfoU6_LhA/видео.html 1.8 million views Despite plagiarizing my work and changing their channel name (formerly known as Screen Prism) after I publicly called them out on it, I haven't even bothered watching this one. ruclips.net/video/fHvk2zgUBpY/видео.html 934k views Several in the comment section are claiming I didn't debunk the video, but when giving their reasoning they actually provide an altered version of the Wendy Theory (not the one I debunked). The simple fact that commenters are having to alter the theory to try and give it credibility illustrates that several of the debunk points I have given hold sufficient merit. Nevertheless, I'll address some of those altered theory points ... - Someone suggested that scenes involving groups of more than two characters are real events. This doesn't work at all. The Gold Room scenes contain hundreds of people who aren't at th hotel and are actually from a different historical era. The twins scene involves three characters (two girls plus Danny) and same goes for the bear costumed man scene (two seen by Wendy plus Wendy herself). - Some say the Wendy Theory works alongside other interpretations of the film and that Kubrick meant them all to be true. First, that logic could be used to shove any interpretation into the movie and ignore all conflicting evidence. Second, the Wendy Theory video says in its title that it "finally explains" the film, meaning it supposed to be the definitive interpretation. - For those who say that my statements at the end of there being some details that point the idea Wendy might be an abuser, this is not an endorsement of the Wendy Theory at all, which posits Jack as wholly innocent. My take on this at the moment is that Wendy trying to cover up for Jack's abuse, shares a certain amount of guilt and responsibility. This is totally different to the Wendy Theory.
Rob, I’ve watched a lot of your videos, especially over the Shining. I respect your editing chops and carving out a business for yourself. I think you’re taking things personally. Whether or not that seems rational, I didn’t see you responding to the actual points in the Wendy Theory, but talking about being linked to the author, or the author being anonymous: you focused on the author, rather than on their work. For example, they posit that everything with witnesses (I.e., the crowded hotel lobby at the beginning) is real: you did NOT mention or address the color of Danny’s bicycle, as referenced in the Wendy Theory, nor did you mention the snow cats position. Furthermore, I think it fits perfectly with the chauvinistic misogynistic style of “bat-shit crazy bitch.” Really, Jack comes across as a Saint with Herculean patience viewed through this lens You staked the territory, and want to fend off those trying to piggy-back on your work, or take advantage of you: that makes sense. I want you to know, I’ve watched your videos so many times and referenced you to friends, and if I ever made a video, I might give similar tribute, in the beginning, as they did.
- If anyone is foolish enough to believe that you would put up a Shining video not on your own channels under an assumed name starting with Rob then I don't know what much can be done for them! - Well that is smart by the author if that is the case. That said there are plenty of Shining videos and typing in "Shining analysis" is going to show several of your videos. I just did it now and you have 4 of the first 13 listed. - As my previous comment it's a theory but not a terribly plausible one within the context of the movie. - Good point. I guess then it comes to the author's intent which we can't know. Maybe it's just pure deception or even the author deceiving themselves! Some videos are clearly total product. I haven't seen this Wendy theory for a while so I don't recall.
@@ruthprudence He did address the bicycle, since it's part of the intentional continuity errors. And those are the main premise of the demonstration, so addressing all of them wouldn't change much.
@@ruthprudence Thanks for your thoughts. I talked about the context at the start of the video and went into the content afterward. does it not seem straqnge to you the video author hasn't corrected the description or responded to comments by ppl who think I made that vid? Regarding the continuity errors you mentioned, I did talk about the general appearance of such errors as not being evidence of Wendy hallucinations specifically. Also mentioned that virtually all the scenes have continuity errors and that most are likely deliberate, but for the purpose of disorienting the viewer and creating as feeling of something not quite right in the hotel. The mismatching sets has already been acknowledged by the co-producer Jan Harlan as being for that very purpose.
@@ruthprudence I completely agree with you Ruth. I know there are more discontinuity errors that I am not familiar with, so that, supposedly, with enough of them, any odd theory can be put forward, but Mr. Ager did not directly confront the points made. Pesonal attacks of style (electronic voice over, anonymity) over substance is a big red flag. One of the biggest points in favour of the Wendy theory, which Mr. Ager does not debunk, is that it finally explains the most famous plot hole of the entire movie, in fact one of the most famous plot holes in all of movie history(!): How did Jack get out of the freezer? For that alone the theory deserves more respect. The problem here is a lot of people have devoted years of analysis to this film, and there is inevitably a negative reaction when you have so much time invested, and something comes along that puts your efforts in the shade. Note I am not saying I am 100% convinced this theory entirely covers Kubrick's overarching narrative intention, but I think it is quite possible he had this option running in his mind somewhere...: I do think it could potentially be a revolutionary understanding of a film like we have rarely seen, but I am waiting for a convincing counter-argument, not being an expert on this particular film.
For some reason I was fixated on the small island in the opening shot - turns out it's named Wild Goose Island (as in wild goose chase). Is this pure coincidence or is there a chance Kubrick told us in the first 10 seconds that he created an unsolvable maze of a film?
I just fact checked you and your correct. Wild Goose Island is in Eastern Shore of Lake McDonald at Glacier National Park is where they filmed the driving scene. It's beautiful and that scene should be used in Glacier National Parks advertisements.
Yes!! I love this idea and correlates with what I've been thinking (also in line with the Wendy theory) perhaps there is no "right" answer. Maybe Wendy was crazy, maybe it was Jack or maybe it was the hotel etc etc OR maybe it's a movie about potentiality - the potentiality for anyone or anything to be evil. It almost seems impossible to comprehend how Kubrick could have orchestrated this but if anyone could it would be him.
fits with the wendy theory. trying to get anywhere or even trying to help a victim complex covert narcissist is definitely a wild goose chase. he probably took them there to help her.
@@anima6035 Yeah, the multiplicity of possible - probable - readings is how I've come to most appreciate the film, that Kubrick intentionally devised it to be at least 3 intricately interwoven and parallel narratives reflecting the 3 main characters' experiences, plus a more comprehensive and objective one which is his confession about his involvement with the Apollo 11 moon landing and the staged footage he crafted, ostensibly to be broadcast if a disaster occurred, as an insurance policy for NASA and the Government. I believe the Gov made him an offer he couldn't refuse, and he resented it.
One has to admit that, whether absolutely correct or not, the "Wendy Theory" does give a new perspective on the line "there's a crazy lady in the hotel with us".
@@Sanju-mo6in No, the most convincing answer to that is tbe ghost of Delbert Grady, at least for those of us who aren't ashamed to take "scary movies" at face value.
He has no evidence to debunk the wendy theory. He talked 10 minutes straight about other movies and the producer. The paper being back in the typewriter says it all right there
His daughter, who worked on the film, told me that Wendy turns into the strong female hero of the film. In the beginning she is a weak, abused woman who then finds the resoucefulness to fight back against Jack. If you notice, Jack does scary stuff, but Wendy does the most actual, physical damage with her baseball bat and knife (between Wendy and Jack). Kubrick's own notes in his copy of The Shining never references Wendy as an abuser. He did wonder why she stayed with him, though. I remember Kubrick writing in the margin, contemplating the reason why she stayed with Jack after the drunk dislocation of his arm, "Danny, Love, or Sex"?
Ask yourself why she was wearing that outfit. She was appearing passive, non-threatening. She was dressing in a way to pacify her violent husband, but also to appear slightly childlike (in the hope he'd target her rather than danny, perhaps?). As someone who can see the sex abuse angle, and who's worked with abused mums and children, it's actually shocking to see how right Kubrick got that look if he didn't intend it. It's scarily common for partners to become incredibly passive and almost comedically weak because they're utterly convinced that they are the cause of the abuse, so the only way they can prevent it is to become the target.
Absolutely, and that's why I've never agreed with the idea she was just a "Rag Doll" etc. She was beaten down, physically and emotionally but as with most Kubrick films, he DOES leave little glimmers of hope and Wendy and Danny both apply to that. Wendy is very brave and how many kids would do what Danny does... With the Shine or not? I've always felt like Kubricks films are linked. Similar to Bergman or Fellini, he would carry over ideas. Danny as the proverbial "Star Child" isn't out if the realm. I'm not saying he's Dave Bowman reincarnate, but moreso just a carrying on of the idea of if that person was born, how would it work?
yeah and just like shelley's acting when she finally sees danny in the maze and he runs to her and she embraces him is so gorgeous and idk i would feel really cheated to k that she's just insane and is the one destroying her little son. people use the deleted hospital scene where jack isn't mentioned and ullman tells her there was nothing "unusual" going on in the hotel, but i thinjk he's refering to the blood gushing elevators and the skeletons wendy saw and the woman who strangled danny. he doesn't mention jack but that's probably because shes in a hospital after almost being murdered by him, it would seem insensitive for him to say something about him at that point imo.
I dunno man. I think you're being a bit dismissive. Guy reaches a little for sure but I don't think reasons like "it doesn't fit" or "it doesn't make a lot of sense" are very convincing. I don't think it's only about continuity errors tho he certainly brings that up a lot. I'm happier to accept that as symbolic of insanity etc. But I think it's a little weak that you'd put out a video pointing out the absence of the bear rug symbolically referring to Jack's sexual abuse and criticize this as far fetched. Both make sense and require a little reach. Anyway the real point I wanted to make was yea I don't think it's only linked to continuity errors. I think it's quite interesting because since the very first time I watched this there seemed to be something dramatically off with how everyone was interacting. Things didn't line up. Expressions didn't fit the narrative. And if you give the benefit of the doubt to the Wendy theory that kind of goes away. First off she just seems spacey and out of it. Especially when she approaches him at the typewriter. Before he loses his shit at her she's just looking totally off. And then afterwards Jack does appear almost, confused and perplexed. Like what the fuck are you doing/saying? It happens way more than a few times as well where he's just trying his best to cope with her instability. I've always felt as well the scene with the bat he 'really' seems so even and measured, fully expecting her to just hand it to him never thinking she's going to actually swing. It really, really does feel like someone trying to talk a crazy person down off the ledge. Also the part with the carpet. Man. I don't know if that's a continuity error. The pattern changes entirely and the shot is set up with Danny's toys and the ball in the exact same place but reversed the pattern. That feels dramatically intentional. Esp when Jack goes back and it's reversed the same way cuz they clearly have two patterns for that spot in the set. There's other continuity errors as well like major set pieces being removed. Lamps added to ceilings or removed which would have meant taking it out and drywalling everything. The part with Danny sucking his thumb after being hurt as well he looks totally confused. And that flash of her looking over the radios or what have you when Danny goes in room 237? That's definitely suggesting something. With her spacey out of touch explanation of how Danny hurt his arm. And the fact that Jack knows Grady's name but he only told her his last name, and then he shows up with a different first name. Then the super freakout at the end with all these wacked out scenes where she's seeing the river of blood, skeletons, bear guy. A whole lot of things make a lot more sense if she's the one actually going crazy. Not saying this is canon now or anything but I do wonder about the consistency of things in all the other scenes of the movie regarding the continuity and I honestly do think this movie totally makes sense if she's the one losing her mind. I don't think it's a home run but it's awfully compelling. Calling it garbage isn't really fair by any means. Considering you've made theories about the freezer door opening on opposite sides giving guy a bit of rope on his own continuity errors seems appropriate.
Wasn't there also an unused final scene where Ullman visits Wendy in the hospital? I thought there was dialogue in it that inferred it had all been in her head? If I am remembering this right, that could be why Kubrick left it out. Too defining?
@@m.n.s.s2825at the start, after he got the job. He called Wendy to tell her about the Grady incident because he knew that would excite her because she's into horror.
Every Kubrick movie has continuity errors. Remember: his perfectionism was all about creating a great artistic experience, not in avoiding "dings" in a Cinema Sins video.
people being butthurt about this need to realize, it's ok to have standards when you're judging the validity of theories. you can't adopt a "everybody wins, everybody's view is valid" mentality when it comes to appreciating an artistic vision. his explanation of wanting to distance himself from this theory is understandable
In a way it is a debunking. It's pointing out that simply saying "continuity errors = hallucinations," is both baseless and not an effective argument. Wendy does not display signs of Schizophrenia or any other mental condition that would cause hallucinations. There is nothing tying the continuity errors to the idea that Wendy is mentally unsound much less abusive. You cannot "disprove," this argument because it is intentionally vague, but Rob has successfully explained why it isn't convincing.
I believe that Kubrick intentionally crafted clues and hints that would lead to multiple interpretations. This would create more uncertainty in the audience... it is that uncertainty that made The Shining so effective as a horror movie. Jack goes crazy. Jack imagines his book's story 'come to life'. Danny's Shining reflects Jack's and Wendy's fears back on them. Jack AND Danny AND the hotel ALL Shine, causing interference and amplification of their imaginations. The hotel is haunted with the spirits of natives. Wendy is nuts and hallucinating it all. All could be true, but the audience doesn't know which one is true. That's good horror.
@@olakrez. well, I was sort of kidding but, if I’m not totally delusional, I really do think it was about me and Mark levin and Bon Jovi are trying to make me go crazy. Yup. I said it
My son jokingly told me that in the scene where Danny meets the twin girls, that it is Danny that imagines chopping them to pieces, and the thought shocks him into running away from them. That part will never be the same for me again.
He only used one reference to your theories which was the props and environment being moved around during scenes. It spent maybe 10 seconds showing your website on the subject and was only used as a springboard for his theory. Personally, I found a decent amount of info very interesting and the now deleted ending by kubrick kind of adding credence to the theory. Edit: After watching the video through, this isn't really a debunk video, but more of a ''this guy isn't me, and this is not my theory''. I think the amount of layers of context this movie has is almost impossible to determine and even then our most beloved theories are still just theories after all. I have watched yours over the years and have found them entertaining just as I found the wendy theory entertaining, but if you do debunk in the future, try not to make it so personal and focus more on the points of the theory itself.
@@ANALOGCLIPS ... And you notice he doesn't explain all the things going on in Wendy's kitchen or house with Danny only where Jack is supposedly interviewing at the Overlook Hotel! Like the stacked hording of books all over, while on the phone with Jack, Danny collapse in bathroom seeing a nightmare of what will come if they go to Hotel possibly but the missing Donald Duck sticker on the door, movements of Donald Duck on desk bedroom of Danny's room, laying on a bear pillow (where homosexual acts happen later where again Jack is not around), the doctor being a woman and his mother checking on his health as he is in underwear, etc. Kubrick ambiguous messages (if any).
@@jeffhardwick3323 12 minutes in i though the same thing. This is just him ranting about the Wendy theory not being his. And then he goes to "lets look at the evidence" and pretty much sais that "if you look away from the evidence the theory falls". This is not debunking, my view of that movie is still changed.
I agree. This is the second 'debunk' video Rob has made coincidentally, after admitting he didn't discover the theories himself. Also these 'debunks' don't debunk anything. They just disassociate Rob from the theories
One thing that debunks the Wendy theory to me is he never explains Dick Hallorin calling the sheriff's office after Danny shined the incident in room 237. How could Wendy hallucinate that if she doesn't know he is coming?
Possibly the Halloran coming to check out on them was also hallucination If you are aware of the deleted ending which shows Ullman was visiting Wendy in the hospital and he told her there is nothing wrong in the hotel. Everything is fine and her story is all in her head. Police even looked into the maze and didn't find anything ( not even Jack's body) So figure if Halloran is really dead then why police wouldnt found anything on overlook hotel ? It could also mean Wendy never left the overlook with Haloran's Snowcat but the hotel's Snowcat which she hallucinated destroyed by jack
@@wayneirwin4994 He ? You mean the guy who made the Wendy theory ? Yes I heard it too, and I believe he missed some crucial/or probably the biggest " continuity error" which could lead to the theory that Halloran was also happening to her delusion and not actually real. For example, Notice the scene where Halloran was giving Wendy a Kitchen tour. Just before the halloran opens the refrigerator ( not the pantry ) door to you will notice the door was open from the left side ( from outside ) but when from inside you will see they are entering from the right side. Totally flipped Notice when Halloran opens the refrigerator, The outside area was "The Kitchen" Wendy was so thrilled about ( Like she can't tell what to do with all that stuff ) but when They were exiting from the refrigerator you will see the whole location has changed. The kitchen is replaced by a corridor ( with an exit sign ) Probably the most noticeable " continuity error"even can be spotted by average viewers and obviously left on purpose I suggest you revisit the movie again and check it for yourself
I don’t think a lot of people actually believed in this theory as much as they were fascinated by how the theory uses certain parts of the movie for its argument, and I found the theory more entertaining than some of the ones in the Room 237 documentary, but I’ll happily watch a debunk video from Rob Ager anyway haha
where 237 docu takes the cake is the moon landing stuff. like, after years of ignoring that conspiracy theory in favor of others i cared about more, i finally looked. watched "american moon (english version)" on yt and read kaysing's "We never went to the moon: america's 30 billion dollar swindle" and about 10 minutes into that study i said YEAH WE DIDN'T GO. it's blindingly obvious. and knowing that, i just don't see how anyone could see danny in that apollo sweater and dismiss the idea that it's connected to kubrick and the faking of the apollo project.
@@kevinnelson198 well, yeah. eh, idk. believing we landed on the moon is just something people do from being brainwashed, not malice so much. like, the moon buggy was bigger than the craft it allegedly flew in on. "we haven't gotten past the van allen belts yet, but plan to" - NASA. lmao! just 2 hilarious examples of hundreds of evidence points.
I see that at a certain point, the movie completely dives into the novel the character Jack is writing. It takes place at the hotel, and features the scenes we see. You know Kubrick is telling you that there is a shift in realities because there are several changes including the typewriter color/model and the removal of a giant wooden sculpture in the main lobby. The Jack in the novel wears the red jacket.
How does that really change anything? The idea that there's switching from reality to his book is pretty blatant as far as theories go. But is it real or his actual book is an overt premise. But we don't know what the book he's writing is at all. It could be a story about a caretaker going mad in a haunted hotel. Or it could be the story of a caretaker who's wife goes mad in a hotel and murders him. If it's based on continuity errors or that's bunk I don't think the theory that she's the insane one hinges on those errors at all.
@@wallyosmond9204 Jack isn't intending to write _a book_ there, though. He's only working on the outline, as he states. In fact, it's only when he hears of the Grady murders that he knows what his idea for his next book is. Literally right AS he gets the job! So Jack isn't simply going from concept to writing the entire novel in under 5 months. The changes from his green and blue to red garb, light to dark typewriter, the central wood sculpture disappearing - as well as many other smaller "continuity errors" (that aren't errors at all) - indicate dream-logic and *a certain* 'unreality'. Notice when he wakes up, and that these specific details change once he does.
How could you say the guys video wasn’t genuine? He put more work into it than you did In this one. The thumbnail is click bait (like most videos) and isnt meant to be taken as fact. He says the entire video this is what he thinks and nothing more. He used your website to have all the continuity errors in hand. As a viewer we can take the errors as fact since you already have been accepted as a creditable researcher. You would have preferred him to spent (however long it would take) in finding the errors himself before making a theory? Or better yet he could have pretending he found the error and not give you credit. How do you personally explain all the continuity errors? Are we suppose to believe they were accidental? Would you say it was all 100% an accident? If you consider some to be deliberate then there has to be a reason. Not saying his reasons are correct but then I ask you to make a video and explain. Just know I’m going to say your video isn’t genuine. Sorry
This video is ridiculous. He spends 12 minutes talking about himself then gives a bunch of weak arguments about how the Wendy theory is, "garbage" debunks nothing, then at the end says he agrees with the idea that Wendy could be the one abusing Danny, which is the whole point of the Wendy theory. He does have a point in that the Wendy theory would be difficult to debunk because its based on her hallucinating the majority of the events. But the linchpin of those hallucinations is the continuity errors. And do you know how you could go a long way into actually debunking the theory? Show us another Kubrick movie with a huge amount of continuity errors. Now that wouldnt necessarily be proof that the theory is wrong, but its a lot better than, "I didnt make the Wendy theory video and I dont agree with it." The Wendy theory isnt perfect, nor are any of the theories that people have come up with over the years. But it DOES make sense, it DOES explain much of what is going on in the movie, and for him to just dismiss it as "garbage" without any real in depth analysis is extremely lazy and disingenuous.
I don't know, If you have watched all of the other Rob Agar/ Collative Learning videos (he also has a website with a lot of written essays too) Rob Agar spends an absolutely inordinate amount of time coming through all the inconsistencies in the movie. As in all of them. What I've taken from his other videos and writings are he doesn't believe there are any continuity errors at least intentional ones. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says (for example his theory regarding Indian genocide and the gold standard) but at least in his scripted videos he does tend to at least source why he is saying the things he says and where he is getting his information from. I'm just saying if you haven't watched his other scripted videos don't necessarily judge this one too harshly yet. You may end up not agreeing with his ideas either but I don't think anyone can say that he isn't thorough.
Rob....It it took you 12 minutes to get past talking about yourself, and another three to get to anywhere that resembles the meat of the matter. While I appreciate some of your work (however much of it is long-winded and redundant), this has to be your lowest moment in terms of concept and execution.
I totally respect you wanting to distance yourself from certain people or theories but the tone of your voice reminds me a loT of how my very old USC film professors talk down to students when they don't like something because it doesn't live up to their "Hollywood ideals". nothing wrong with it but kinda rubs me the wrong way. everyone's entitled to their own opinions and everyone takes away different things from different films- I understand wanting to de confuse people on where theories came from tho. I am a USC film student and I love making and studying films and I have lots of respect for those who do but RUclips is not really the platform to be gatekeeping who is "qualified enough" to talk about films. have been fascinated by your theories for a long time but the tone in this video comes across as very condescending and mirrors how an older generation of filmmakers looks down upon the next generation-not saying that's what's happening here just reminds me of it.
While I can definitely see why you would feel that way I also understand how frustrating it must be to put so much effort into researching the creative process of making a movie, analyzing scenes for hours and providing evidence for different theories for many years (since 2008, I believe?) just to have a fellow creator cite your work in the description of a video while dismissing it completely and calling the main plot of the movie a mere hallucination. I highly doubt he even read most of it because if he did he would‘ve noticed that his theory doesn‘t really add up with Kubrick‘s vision and the clues that we do have. The Wendy Theory (although fun and interesting) doesn‘t make much sense, especially if we take Stanley Kubrick‘s notes and general meticulousness into consideration. He just wouldn’t make a movie where the main plot or at least the plot twist is something as cliche as a hallucination or a dream. I think what rubbed Rob Ager (and me, not gonna lie) the wrong way is that the creator of the Wendy Theory Video claimed that finally, after all these years and so many failed attempts, *this* is *the one* that explains it all. It just comes across as disrespectful because it a) doesn‘t and b) disregards the insane amount of effort and actual solid evidence that went into other theories by hundreds of different people. In my opinion, Rob Navarro should have just described it as a unique take on the plot (which it is and in itself makes it worth watching) instead of portraying it as the be all end all. I don‘t know, that just seems condescending to me. I get where you‘re coming from, though.
I completely agree. His attitude in this is really rude and this debunk video, like his others, only shuts down discourse in favor of his opinion. Also, he really didn’t debunk anything, his entire arguement is a straw man.
@@Milenaiguess you can’t have it both ways. If Stanley kubrick is so keen on details then explain the dozens of continuity errors in the film? Btw, those continuity errors would require building construction half the time so explain them? Your argument, like rob Agers, is full of holes
This isn't a "debunk" video. It's an "I disagree" video. A debunk would give reasons why the Wendy Theory CAN'T be right or examples of what it fails to answer.
This video does give that. The Wendy Theory vid hinges massively on the idea that continuity errors can be used to distinguish real events from hallucinated ones. But virtually ever scene in the film has continuity errors. That alone annihilates the theory. Then there's all the other things I mentioned.
@@robag555 The Wendy Theory video sets a baseline for what is true and what isn't. The walkthrough of the hotel at the beginning of the movie is the real Overlook. Jump to 6:17 of the Wendy Theory video.
To believe The Wendy Theory, one must buy into The Shining’s continuity errors being purposeful prop manipulation, not production crew “accidental errors.” Unintended continuity errors are commonly made during scenes requiring multiple shooting sessions to complete, up to multiple days, which demand separate set ups. I find the scene where Wendy approaches a typing Jack compelling. The background chair and side table disappears and reappears in the closely edited clips, but Jack’s hair remains precisely in the same place as do the folds and wrinkles in his shirt, not to mention the camera never shifts, and Jack’s position in the frame is the same. This is an impossible feat if the final edit was cobbled together from separate shooting sessions. So, this sequence of reaction shots of Jack were filmed during the same session, and there seems to have been an orchestrated effort to manipulate the chair and table. This begs the question, “Why?” I’m not stating The Wendy Theory is that “why”… but why?
I mean, those continuity errors do happen if you're doing very few takes and have to mash them together somehow to push the film into release. When you do HUNDREDS of takes, the idea is that every detail should fit. The argument that this amount of takes would propel continuity errors is quite preposterous. Sure, chairs are moved between days of shooting, but it serves exactly the contrary, that you now have enough takes to do PROPER CONTINUITY. Unless you're deliberately trying to conjure these errors as part of the plot and redoing the script in the editor's POV. John Ford used to force continuity between scenes to avoid the editor cutting out too much. Kubrick, I believe, manipulated those takes purposefully and masterfully.
I have also heard the suggestion that moving the chair and other things could be interpreted as the hotel messing about. It's the Overlook; there's stuff we miss that add to the unsettled feeling we get.
Kubrick went to a great deal of trouble to create an interior that is architecturally impossible. Making objects and light switches move around is probably part of that. You may not notice these details, but your brain did, and it makes you feel uneasy without understanding why.
I disagree with the notion that he has to expose his real life identity on the Internet, but he shouldn't have cited you without making it clear that he isn't associated with you in any way. Not that it seems like he had an actually good reasons to cite you to begin with.
Agree... I know The Wendy Theory is not a likeable Theory because the amount of hate I recieve in Reddit just asking about it. Also... whoever that made the Wendy Theory video knew stuff that Rob Ager never addressed. The continuity errors of mounted light fixtures, mounted switches and mounted stage designs. Sure chairs, lamps and rugs are easy to move. But adding and removing mounted items is a whole different continuity error.
Also I have no idea if this true or not and I am not a fan of the computer voice but someone posed that maybe the reason for the computer voice is that narrator/author doesn't speak English as a first language
@@wrathofatlantis2316 I originally thought the Wendy Theory was a joke, but I took a few days to investigate Rob Navarro claim. Wendy is reading The Catcher in the Rye and she reveals a dog-eared fold. Believe it or not. Catcher and Dog-eared Fold are reference to Oswald. The FBI searched Oswald room and among all the books found, they said Catcher was an important find because of the dog-eared fold. I believe this reference was muddled because John Lennon murder. Also, Rob Navarro was wrong about the kool-aid (he claims this is where Wendy will put the kool-aid.) Im 100% positive the kool-aid is reference to Jonestown 1978.
@@richardstaschy809 It's not as difficult as you think. They are just props given sticky backs. Even ceiling lights can be battery operated. I really don't think those appearing/disappearing light switches went "into" the wall requiring openings.
8:18 this could simply be that the creator of this video is capable of writing english, but may not speak it very well, or with a heavy accent that would either turn the audience away, or make it difficult to understand the creator.
HA! Ager is jelly someone put up a better video and original theory. I doubt he was invited to participate in room 237. The Wendy video doesn't cite ager at all, it says that it's presenting something different than what ager or anyone else has presented. He is talking about disassociating himself from the videos and here he is injecting himself into things to get attention. The comments he refs are all new and totally no-name accounts, most likely ager himself posted or had folks he knows post. And then ager is talking about how the creator didn't "call" him to see what he thinks. That super narcissistic and needy. Then he goes on about how stupid it is and makes ad home attacks and presumptions about the creator. He spends nearly half of this video just bashing it and not debunking anyone and his "debunking" is just saying he doesn't agree which is fine but that doesn't mean debunking, that is ager's opinion and then cites his own theories as proof of things as if he is somehow the world's authority on the movie. We call that circular logic. When ager talks about the first example in the Wendy video, he says the creator gives no examples of his theory, and anyone who has watched it knows he gives many examples, such as the demeanor of Jack, the missing chair, the paper Jack rips up still being in the typewriter, and a couple others. He says just general things glossing over the examples and then ager says "I don't think so" which again, is his opinion (totally fine) but again, is acting as if he is the end all be all on the shining, then begins to plug his own material again, just hocking the content he hides behind a paywall saying "oh he is not going to get into things" but go to his site pay for it. Followed by , "I've not found anything" and says "it's garbage" and he "disagrees". Pretty sad that ager is going on like this, desperate for attention. This sorta sounds like the other video ager did where he claims someone plagiarized his material. Literally, there is no debunking at all. It's nothing but ager just saying "its garbage" and "go to my website". Sorry Ager, I don't mean to put you down but this sorta undermines your own credibility as a content creator.
Based on what I saw from his channel he seems like a fan inspired by you (or is a very elaborate troll) and he probably uses a robot voice because he's not a native english speaker (or he's super shy maybe?). If he's not a native speaker he may have a thick accent that he might believe is hard to understand or think could be off-putting in some way.
I quite like the Wendy theory. That’s not saying I think that it’s correct or what Kubrick intended. The theory itself though I found interesting. The idea that Wendy was “the crazy lady” in room 237 was something that I thought might have worked. As I say I don’t think the theory is right, but it’s interesting to think about the film if it had been made with that underlying theme. Thinking of it as an alternative version it’s intriguing. Keep up the great work Rob.
I'm with you there, my impression of the theory overall is that it adds transformative value to the work and offers a whole new story and a whole new interpretation to the existing text, in the same way that Kubrick's film itself was an interpretation of the work by King. Death of the author and all that. The original intent and the idea of a single, static, "factually correct" interpretation of a work are what seem less meaningful or important to me, as compared to what any one individual brings to it and then subsequently takes away from it. If they can speak well and compellingly to support that idea, so much the better.
I don't find the content interesting when the video makes truth claims about itself "The Wendy Theory is the best and simplest explanation that has ever been put forth" and "This Finally Explains The Shining!" Plus the Wendy Theory has to invalidate other events in The Shining in order to function correctly.
@@ericolson1430 yeah I honestly like idea and think it’s actually really creepy. I once heard a theory about An American Werewolf In London where David isn’t actually a werewolf but it’s all in his mind. Perhaps running around believing he was a wolf with a machete or something lol. Again you can poke holes in it and say that’s not at all what was intended in the film, but that’s really not the point. It’s interesting to think about an alternative version of the film where that was what was intended. Kinda reminded me of the true crime story about Austin Harrouff
People worry that the Wendy theory takes away from most of the other themes of the film. Such as genocide of Native Americans, racism, misogyny, power, greed, human evilness, etc. Unless you think the Wendy theory adds to all of those?
Not a lot of actual debunking in this video. Pretty much a waste of time. Eyebrow Cinema's "The Wendy Theory is Bad" does a good debunking, especially about continuity errors, but I don't agree on a lot of his arguments. The question I have about continuity errors is, where's all the testimony from the film crew that Kubrick instructed them to put in this or that and then remove this or that?
You don’t debunk anything; you disagree with it. Which is fine. The Shining is operating on so many planes at the micro level, that it seems logical that the film is operating thematically/plot-wise on wholly other levels, simultaneously, as well. Many, apparently different truths, being truthful together. There are many very clever videos on this film out there, that are very valid in very different ways.
I wished Rob Ager talked about Wendy reading Catcher in the Rye. Believe it or not. She reveals a dog-eared fold in the book for almost 10 seconds. Catcher in the Rye and the Dog-eared fold was a reference to the FBI claiming that Catcher was an important find in the Oswald investigation. I do find it interesting that Stanley Kubrick The Shining movie is similar to David Lynch later films. And that Eraserhead was Stanley Kubrick favorite movie. I wonder if David Lynch made the Wendy Theory video. Whoever made the video had a real deep knowledge of the movie, especially since Rob Ager pointed out that he didn't see some of the continuity errors that Rob Navarro points out.
10:32 Is the start of actually looking at the theory, the first 10 1/2 minutes are Rob Ager pointing out an important distinction about the authorship of the original video and the room 237 documentary having nothing to do with him. Not saying skip the first part necessarily, but there aren't chapters on the video etc so thought this might be helpful to some
I love your channel and your insights but I don't really feel that you debunked this one but rather that you just don't agree with it. Yes, the other Rob, that clearly has a different last name as you, did mention your videos as an influence but never stated or even implied that you endorsed his point of view. It merely seemed that he wanted to acknowledge you as someone whose work informed his own ideas. I felt that was pretty clear and never saw any reason to assume otherwise. Furthermore, I think that your own interpretations of the abuse themes of Kubrick do work inside the Wendy Theory. Now, whether your right about inconsistencies in correlation between continuity errors and Wendy's theorized psychosis is correct or not, I can't say. There are too many details in that movie to keep up with, but nothing you said in your own video has convinced me to readily dismiss it as wrong. You spent so much time emphasizing that you weren't affiliated with the video, that it feels like this is what you really cared about, more than anything and that's fine if you felt it wasn't clear. I think it's important to be understood in where you stand, especially if lines are getting crossed. However, again, I really think other Rob was also clear where he was coming from and it seems unfair to suggest that he was trying to ride on your coattails, at least to the extent of trying to fool people in believing there was an association. If he did a few tricks to boost the algorithm, I wouldn't let that bother you. As far as I can see it would boost yours too if it caught on... or not. Is it that big a deal? (Honest question, there.) As someone who has let misunderstandings get me out of sorts in the past I think the situation may require a little more pondering. My two cents in the age of the internet. Cheers.
Great reply... Something I learned in the summer. Wendy was reading Catcher in the Rye and she reveals a dog-eared fold which IS reference to the FBI claiming that Catcher was an important find in the Oswald investigation. I'm also learning that Stanley Kubrick really liked Eraserhead so much that he made the cast of the Shining watch it.
Yes, emphasizing my lack of involvement or endorsement of the Wendy Theory was my priority here. Cheers. I disagree he was simply giving me credit. The only thing in his video that matches my work is a single chair continuity error. And, despite some folks in the comment section claiming I made his video, he hasn't provided any clarification responses that I'm aware of. And there's no evidence that's his real name, thanks to fake voice and lack of links to any other online presence he has. The presence of continuity errors in virtually all scenes of the movie, in itself, demolishes the theory being that most of it hinges on continuity as a differential marker for hallucination vs "real" scenes. It's a very easy debunk just on that level, but more is outlined in the vid :)
@@collativelearning That's fair. I'm still not totally on board with your interpretation of events regarding other Rob but I don't fault you for taking what you feel is the necessary action. Frankly, if you are correct in your assessment, I'm surprised this is a new phenomenon for you. You've garnered enough notoriety and respect that I would have imagined there would be a long line of grifters by now. All in all, I hope you don't think I feel ill will towards your stance. I'm just offering an alternative perspective on what was possibly intended.
What about the cut scene where Ulman visits Wendy and Danny in the hospital and states nothing out of the Ordinary happened at the overlook. Apparently that scene was viewed during the first weekend of release but has been cut completely.
One of my PDF articles goes into detail about that, based on the stills and forum reports from ppl who say they saw the original cut. We don't have a lot of info about it. Apparently Ullman wears a big bear like coat (this is in the production still), does a Tony-like finger gesture to Danny and I think throws him a tennis ball. If those reports are true then there's a lot to consider about the scene. Is Ullman Tony in that instance? Has he deliberately had Jack and Halloran's death covered up? Hard to draw conclusion.
I think you misnamed this video. As others have stated, you didn't debunk the Wendy Theory. You stated that whoever made the Wendy Theory video is wrong. Your only points were that Kubrick had never had a female abuser before, and there were a lot of continuity errors in the movie. Still not sure why you felt compelled to have to respond.
I think it’s because he’s the type of guy who likes to feel that he is the only one in the know, if anybody challenges him or his authority, he feels very insecure and has to tell everyone that he is the only one who is allowed to teach the truth
I think Kings reaction to the Wendy character was all wrong. Yes, she cried a lot in a scary situation. But she beat Jack unconscious with a bat, dragged him to the storage room and locked him up. She escaped with Danny and drove off in the Snowcat through the Wilderness.. She was the hero of the film.
The Wendy theory is the best theory aside from your own reading of Danny's abuse. But the Wendy theory fills in a lot more gaps and both can comfortably coincide. I must mention you took about 13 minutes to get to the point, then brushed it off in broad strokes. I think it warrants more thought.
I know I sound like a fan boy, but I think credit where it's due is essential on platforms like youtube. Rob and a few other channels, all with slightly different focuses, set the trend off and by around 2013, loads of other film channels began to spring up. There are one or two other well researched and well intended channels out there now though. I enjoy Cinema Tyler for example as the guy delves deep into the actual productions around movies. He has a great series of vids on aspects around the making of Apocalypse Now for example.
Man that thumbnail creeped me out 😅 I agree about Room 237, really enjoyed the movie and the presentation and it got me thinking about some interesting interpretations, but I found myself being really skeptical about the interpretations, especially the moon landing theory.
There are, generally, no continuity “errors” in a Kubrick movie. The visual ambiguity is disorienting and makes the audience question what they are seeing. The theories, whether hallucination vs. ghost story vs. any other perspective, is a reflection of the viewer. Kubrick’s movies tend to be about the complexity and mystery of human nature, as shown by human behavior and relationships. The Wendy theory is plausible. You can make sense of the movie from the perspective of Wendy’s supposed “mental illness” as much as Jack the unhinged psychopath theory, or most other theories. The moon landing bit is also a potential clue. That theory has been around since 2001 (the movie) which came out around the same time as the moon landing. It was so “realistic” in many people’s minds that a fake moon landing seems possible. Kubrick could easily be playing with the audience putting that sweater on Danny. It’s a work of art, a puzzle, a joke, but most of all, it’s a reflection of the audience.
It came out the year before the moon landing. Which is why that conspiracy theory exists. If it came out the year after everyone would shrug and say "these movie visuals have gotten really good"
Sorry, I like your videos but I have to disagree with you. I think the Wendy theory still holds up; in fact that’s one thing that makes this movie so awesome. There are 1 million ways to interpret it, and they may all be plausible. Firstly, we still have an abuser, except it’s the one we did not expect. That still fits with Kubrick’s other movies. Secondly, the video tells us which scenes are real and not hallucination due to continuity errors, such as the paper still being in the typewriter and Jack looking more disturbed and worried than angry. The video says that she has schizophrenia, which could result in this delusion. I just think it’s another way of looking at the movie, where Wendy herself is the unreliable narrative. This would make the continuity errors make way more sense than just being Kubrick‘s attempt to just orient us
You come across rather petty. Like you think you are The Shining guy and all the other YT channels and projects aren't worthy. And this video is basically clickbait, since you didn't debunk anything. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is debunked. The Wendy Theory is well done and very interesting. Don't be so jelly.
The only thing that caught my eye in the "Wendy theory" is the TV they watch before Danny going for the fire engine - the TV is not plugged in anywhere and it feels like she may be staring in the blank TV...? Any thoughts on this or continuity "error"? Thank you! Appreciate you work so much, Rob
Yeah, I was thinking about this one also. Really interesting. I hope Rob could answer this one, because that was the thing, that really stuck in my mind.
It could have something to do with all the cartoony stuff in The Shining. Like literal Disney and Peanut cartoons, Jack acting like the big bad wolg. Idk like Wendy's life became as absurd asa cartoon. Fiction metaphorically being relived becoming a surreal nightmare (Jacks writing on serial killers happened to them IRL too). The tv was unplugged cause her life is as fucked up as fiction instead. Just spitballing.
@@couchpotato3197 That's something Kubrick said - he didn't like Disney cartoons, he thought they gave kids nightmares. However, I always thought the Roadrunner cartoon had something to do with Danny coming up with idea of trapping Jack in the maze and walking backwards to escape.
i admire your integrity. there one other video debunking the wendy theory that is very good and mentions you. that's how i found you. edit: the other debunking video is by a channel called eyebrow cinema
I remember watching the video on this theory months ago, and thinking it was both pretty ridiculous and existing solely to be contrarian/different from other theories. In addition to that, Wendy having one big hallucination wouldn’t match up with any of the overarching themes that Kubrick establishes in the film. Did Wendy hallucinate Danny telepathically connecting with Hallorann? Did she hallucinate Danny’s interactions with the Grady twins when she was cooking lunch at the other end of the hotel?
It is not one big hallucination, and there are some separate parts that mix reality with hallucination in a way that makes sense with the mismatching details. The theory perfectly covers the Hallorann issue, in great detail.
The hallucinations theory imo is spot on, even down to her screams, it was more than an external fear enveloping her, those screams seemed heavily traumatic with acute mania.
Yeah, I watched it and thought it was a stupid theory - existing just to try and find some new clickbaity angle, contrarian like you say! Perfectly put.
Contrarian is a good word for it, I wanted to say obtuse, but that is perhaps too strong. People side with silly notions like this one out of some misguided sense of individuality. As if by disagreeing with someone like Rob, who has studied the film and written about it for over a decade, they are striking out against 'sheeple' like ourselves who constantly refer to Rob's work. That's nonsense of course and the phrase throwing out the baby with the bathwater comes to mind. As far as I can can make out, no one other that Rob has anything useful to say about the themes of the film on youtube.
7:24 Anyone is allowed to cite your work without reaching out to you. Whether its cited as inspiration, or they want to debunk your video as you've done many times to others (including this video), or any other reason to cite your work. They don't need to contact you for this. As far as I remember (I can watch it again if I'm wrong), but they only mention you VERY briefly at the start of their video, they make it extremely apparent that they are only referring to your video because of the chair moving and being inconsistent in the "Jack yells at Wendy" scene, and that's it. I love your work Rob, but you're overreacting to this person when you claim that they try to associate themself with you as if it is a continuation of your work. Furthermore, as I said, no one has to contact you at all for anything unless they flat out want/need your permission due to copyright infringement or the like, which is also very clearly not the case in that video. If it was the case, or you honestly felt as though it was, then what are you doing in this video? Hopefully you contacted them first, right? Your other points are fine, but this part of the video comes off as you letting your ego get the better of you.
As I said in the video, what prompted me to do this debunk was the manner of citation giving some people the impression that not only I approved of, collaborated on or endorsed the content, but even leading some to believe I covertly made the video. Even if it was an accidental impression it's still one for me to set the record straight on. Wanting to be clear about what content is and isn't mine isn't an ego issue. Also the creator doesn't provide contact details :)
I agree that people don't need permission to cite his work, and I doubt the original poster is trying to associate themselves with Rob. Although, they likely put his name in the description to show up under search results. And I don't think it's his ego getting the better of him. If people have continually linked the Wendy Theory to Rob, he would want to set the record straight because it doesn't align with his previous articles and videos.
@@robag555 I agree with you that you must maintain your integrity and if anyone (even mistakenly) believes you have input into their work, it is imperative that you clear it up. I don't think you overreacted. I watched the video a while ago and disagreed with the analysis, as my right to do so, but I did take notice that you were mentioned as I watch your channel regularly. My only point of contention is that Stanley Kubrick never does anything unintentional. Any inconsistencies are done on purpose even if it's only in his own mind, there is a reason for it. I look forward to your next analysis.
So, the wendy theory got me thinking that the shining was 3 movies. Which one you're watching is based on who you watch as the protagonist. If it's Danny, a ghost story. If Jack, a nightmare about his life issues. And if wendy, about a paranoid schizophrenic experience. It's just a theory of course.
Just watching all this stuff - Kubrick was under no obligation to "figure out' King's book. Kubrick make *his* movie, and I believe that "Wendy theory" explains Kubrick's movie.
Why, in spite of the counter evidence, I still think the "Wendy theory" video adds an interesting layer to my appreciation and interpretation of the movie: it reveals to me nuances in the portrayal of Jack Nicholson's character and Wendy. It really DOES seem as if Nicholson is sometimes playing a normal , non-pathological version of the character and sometimes he plays an exagarated pathological cartoonish version (and the "switching" occurs throughout the movie), plus the possibility of Wendy's pathology had not occurred to me before, yet it seems kind of obvious on rewatching the film.
Yes he does seem normal at times. That's where the multiple Jack's spanning several generations interpretation starts providing answers. Normal Jack (the present) is writing about the history of the hotel, which features past generation Jack going on a rampage. See the article chapter I linked in the video description. It contains solid evidence pointing to that interpretation and it runs into far less conflict with other evidence :)
i really hate the sometimes he's normal defense, because isn't that just how people in real life are??? no one is a horrible child abuser 24/7, like joan crawford had tons of friends and collegues who vouched for her and defended her against her daughters allegations and talked about how professional she was on set etc etc... people are nuanced and inconcistent it doesnt mean their victims are delusional.
@@sophieschmaltz4206 how would you act if you were accused of child abuse or child molestation, and it wasn't true? What if that person was your wife, and at one time you loved her near unconditionally, but perhaps your faith (however marginal) would see you through that marriage for better or worse? Do you think you'd be of sound mind? How would if affect your career? Your interactions with others? Do you have much experience with people having mental illnesses or dementia?
The ‘Wendy Theory’ seemed such obvious nonsense to me, not least because it’s an extremely glib idea that I can’t imagine Kubrick would have even really considered. One of the things I love about the Shining is how it provokes thought while also being extremely disorienting - but a theory like this is not far from ‘it was all a dream’. Setting the context of Kubrick’s recurrent themes is really important here. It would have been a real aberration in his work to have a single film that doesn’t return to themes of manipulation and abuse by men.
Please expand on the points made at 19 minutes. Long said most of the movie is simply an adaptation of the novel Jack is writing in the hotel, a story inspired by the tale Grady relates in the interview. Look at the lightbulb go off in Jack's head as he hears the story for the first time. Also, very key to this theory is the burning cigarette in the ashtray. Jack does not smoke in the entire film, but the cigarette indicates the fictionalized version of Jack in the story he's writing. The purple jacket is also very telling.
I don’t agree with people having to reveal their identity in public for their arguments to be taken seriously, or even been accepted well. It shouldn’t matter who said something when considering if it might be true, or even just interesting or compelling.
What if the events are occuring in the mind of all 3; Wendy, Danny and Jack. The story is about 3 people going insane in the hotel, right? They all imagined it, and it was different for all 3. That's why the story and hotel keeps changing based on the perspective of the character. This includes the audience, director, and film, if you wish to interpret deeper.
Or as my wife said... what if all 3 characters are one person. That's because the hotel don't want another family man going insane. I find it fascinating that Stanley Kubrick made his cast watch Eraserhead and the Shining is like a David Lynch movie. I'm thinking the Shining is a Polymorphic Movie and the beauty of the movie is all the crazy Theories are possible.
At no point did you debunk this theory, it was more of a self boost and discard of the theory. Personally not fully convinced on the theory myself, however I do find it super interesting. I try to keep an open mind and try not to write off any theories I see and find interesting. I don't really see anyone as the god of the shining theories either, it's for anyone.
Rob, I've been a fan since 2011. One scene which I've puzzled over since I first watched The Shining was towards the end , just before Wendy sees the man in the bear costume, as she's climbing the stairs, you can hear a chorus of voices. Has anyone been able to make out what they were saying?
Hey! Toward the end of the film, Kubrick begins to overlay pieces of music. Now, most of the music used in the film is pre-existing art music, that is, it was not composed or recorded for the film. The two pieces being played when Wendy climbs the steps and sees the man in the dog costume (I’ll always say it’s a dog costume, per the source novel) are both by composer Krzysztof Penderecki. One is titled “Polymorphia” and the other is “Jutrznia.” The latter is a choral piece, and has a religious liturgical text from the Christian gospels. You could look up the text to determine the meaning. However, my guess is just that Kubrick thought it sounded cool. He was right!
@@s.s.4820 Thanks! I didn't know that. I'll definitely look at that music. Very interesting. It's an odd choice to use music which has choral voices in that scene because it seemed to me that they broke the fourth wall as Wendy seemed to hear them
You’re right. It does seem like she’s hearing the voices. I suppose that could just be the way it seems, since she’s acting very frightened. But I’d lean toward your impression that she seems to hear something as well. And that is an interesting approach. One more fascinating thing about the film I guess!
I’ve always thought the choral voices from the musical piece were chosen because they sound like ghosts chanting. Like they’re witnessing the possession of Jack and his murderous plan coming to be and they’re cheering him on. The hotel seems to come more alive with evil as the evil progresses. War works in this way as more and more people give in to demons.
I saw one video on the Wendy theory (can’t say if the original one), with most of the argument being “Kubrick never makes continuity mistakes. If there is one, it is a clue it is a hallucination.” Some commenters say the errors may be deliberate, BUT to create unease because at some level your brain noticed a chair was there/then wasn’t, but the idea that Kubrick was too much of a perfectionist to have errors isn’t correct. His other moves like Eyes Wide Shut have them too, and I think small ones are inevitable in movies.
@@robag555 I watched the whole thing. I was eagerly awaiting for you to get proper stuck into the detail of the theory but was very disappointed as your work is usually comprehensive and masterful. I actually think the Wendy theory is absolutely brilliant but I am not an expert by any means. Is there any chance you can do a more in depth debunking video please?
This Wendy vid popped onto my "recommended" page a few months ago. I have to wonder if they really got inspiration from you, or if they cited you so the you tube algorithm would key word search for your subscribers, and people searching specifically for YOUR vids, and they could piggy back off you a bit. The Wendy theory is certainly interesting. Weird and flawed. But interesting.
The Wendy theory still holds up for me and explains many events in the film that can't be explained in any other way other than 'supernatural' events. It seems to me many sequences within the film like Jack in the Golden Room are accepted as hallucinations in Jacks mind, but Wendy can't possibly be having any hallucinations, it's totally out of the question. The problem people have with the Wendy theory and most probably why you have responded to it by making a 25 minute video is that you feel like you've been hoodwinked by Kubrick as most of the film is a Wendy hallucination, which is I think what Kubrick wanted.
The sweater and carpet etc were NOT showing the Moon landing because the director was feeling guilty or some such nonsense, they were signifying the greatest achievement humankind had achieved thus far. Kubrick's The Shining is ultimately about power acquisition, not ghosts or women hitting their husbands with baseball bats. The Wendy theory is incredibly awful, but it's no worse than the other ones around.
Rob, I don't know if you've ever come across this info, but after checking a website for more obscure stuff about this film, I found something I hadn't seen before. It talks about the epilogue that Kubrick had left out of the theatrical release; this is the entire entry: It’s not uncommon for a film’s ending to change in post-production, but Kubrick changed the ending of the film after it had been playing in theaters for a weekend. The film version is lost, but pages from the screenplay do exist. The scene takes place after Jack dies in the snow. Ullman visits Wendy in the hospital. He tells her, “About the things you saw at the hotel. [A lieutenant] told me they’ve really gone over the place with a fine tooth comb and they didn’t find the slightest evidence of anything at all out of the ordinary.” He also encourages Wendy and Danny to stay with him for a while. The film ends with text over black, “The Overlook Hotel would survive this tragedy, as it had so many others. It is still open each year from May 20th to September 20th. It is closed for the winter.” Roger Ebert deemed the cut a good decision. According to him, “Kubrick was wise to remove that epilogue ... it pulled one rug too many out from under the story.” Would you say that Ullman is perhaps trying to cover up what his crew did find, or does this idea lend some credence to what Navarro is talking about?
That would mean they did not find Hallorann's body, or the door broken through with an axe, the most iconic image of the entire film... If this is really true, do you realize it means the Wendy theory is almost beyond doubt confirmed? I knew it was correct from the subliminal image of Wendy going into the "haunted" room, and the huge bags of salt on the cold room's floor, the snowcat position etc (and also the rolled eyes of Jack, suggesting a knock out), but this, if true, would be genuinely amazing.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 So then Ullman knew at that moment, Wendy murdered Jack, and therefore he (Ullman) immediately invited her (and Danny) to stay with him for a while.... so she could murder him too.
@@spillanegottleib1681 In Ullman's view there was no murder: Jack in a fit of madness went outside and froze to death. He makes it clear that other than Jack's death nothing out of the ordinary was found (except maybe the typed paper, if that). I should amend here that the the subluminal image I described (room 234 door blending to Wendy) is only an odd gradual transition cut, not an actual inserted image. But most other cuts are sharp, so it is still kind of odd, but less clear cut and not the definition of a subluminal image.
Most of these are bad faith arguments. Assuming "we" means the author meant you and himself? And not just "we" as in, the audience? And then the utterly disgusting attempt at attacking the character of the author "well, I don't know any Rob Navaro that could have made this video" - I'm sorry, who made you the authority on verifying people on the internet? I'm 10 minutes into the video, and not ONE legitimate point was discussed.
Mr. Ager you…are the best RUclips source for theories regarding The Shining. You have always been…the best RUclips source for theories regarding The Shining. I should know… I’ve always been subscribed.
You seem to be worried that people watching the Wendy Theory will think it is made by you. When I watched the video I did not think that at all. It was concise whereas your videos take a more meandering train of thought approach. Most comments on it seem to be general discussion and not people saying "Hey is this made by Rob Ager"? He mentions your work at the start as a nice tip of the hat then goes into his observations. Observations you disagree with yet claim are plagiarized. You claim the Wendy Theory's popularity is due in large part to the click bait title however I have a video titled 'THE SHINING FINALLY EXPLAINED' and that video currently has 36 views.Appropriately so, it was an April Fool's joke. It is true you don't raise your voice or name call but you come off as passive aggressive to say the least. You said you didn't want to participate in the Room 237 documentary because the other people involved aren't good enough. Even in the links of the pinned comment you posted there's a note " 1.8 million views Despite plagiarizing my work and changing their channel name (formerly known as Screen Prism) after I publicly called them out on it, I haven't even bothered watching this one." That seems like sour grapes, like you're the self appointed expert that can't be bothered with others.
Rob, I asked for your opinion on this theory few months ago, and you noted that you'd exhausted your analyses of the Shining, and you couldn't respond to every other video. I'm thrilled you're going to dispell this silly notion. Thank you!
Wendy: Danny, who did this to you? Danny: [stares only at her] Jack: [looks on in horror] Wendy: [grabs Danny and backs out of the room] [to Jack] You did this, didn't you? Jack: [looks confused]
This video just makes you sound bitter you didn't think of it, honestly. Sounds really petty. I watched the video you're referencing and never once thought it was attached to you in any way. It uses a robot narrator like a million videos out there. I like your videos but this left a sour taste.
Haha, "uses a robot narrator like a million videos out there". No, there are tons of Shining theory vids on YT. Pretty much all of them, including mine, are made by people who don't hide their identity. It doesn't matter if you personally didn't think the vid was secretly made by me. Others have said so and that alone is enough reason for me to set the record straight - debunking it is a surefire way to do that too. Ask yourself ... why did the vid creator hide their identity, why do they not respond to comments?
@@robag555 you didn't debunk anything. You ranted. The Wendy Theory video had evidence that backed up their theory, and it clicked for me. I hop over here and you're calling this video a "debunking" without addressing ANYTHING from the Wendy video. This video is an embarrassment for you but you keep doubling down. Sharing your VERY COMMON first name and having a robot narrator doesn't discredit their theory. Would have actually enjoyed the content you promised with the title of this video but it appears you're lashing out because of bruised ego. And you're doing nothing to change that perception
I don't understand why there are some many (very) negative comments about the Wendy theory (or any theory). A movie like this clearly has many layers going on. And many "theories" can exist at the same time. The Wendy Theory video does make sense on one level. Whether it says "finally explains" or not is no different than fully dismissing it... ;)
Basically what I am saying is the Wendy theory does not "go against" this guy's work... It is not an either/or situation. The Wendy theory can coexist with other theories due to the way the movie was created.
Don't want to be that guy but isn't it a bit hypocritical to claim the original Wendy Theory video used a click-bait title in a video with a click-bait title?
I disagree that the author 'should' create a video revealing their 'true identity.' There are good reasons to maintain anonymity that have nothing to do with malice. Personally speaking, if I were ever to present any kind of material like this online, I'd do it anonymously as well. My reasons would be quite simple. I would want my ideas to stand on their own and not be tainted by superficial judgements people almost always carry with them in regards to the presenter's appearance, charisma or lack there of. The Wendy theory popped up in my suggestions a bit ago, I watched it, and at NO TIME was I confused or led to believe that the video was a creation of Rob Ager. It was quite evident that the ideas presented were independent, though by somebody who probably admired your work.
@@robag555 who cares who wrote the theory Rob. The more videos and interpretation on such a classic film the better. Each to their own. That's why the docu film is so good. Debunking is just your way to stay in the conversation.
@@robag555 Making the clarification is great, ...but my point was regarding your expectations of the other guy. I hear you though. Frustrating on your end.
@@sgc36 To say it doesn't matter if videos are posted that get wrongly attributed to other uploaders is a very odd thing to say. Correct attribution of source regarding quotes and behaviour is a fundamental basic of our society at the legal and social levels, "Way to stay in the conversation" ... I was already in the Wendy Theory conversation on the basis of mistaken attribution lol.
On topic of things moving around between shots remind me of the hedge animals from the novel that only move when you aren’t looking them. Maybe this was Kubrick’s transition of just that. Things move when you’re not looking, which in my opinion is more frightening
I like the Wendy theory, just because Wendy, though it seems rather a stretch. Once in college, an instructor straight out told me my interpretation of something was wrong. I was pretty offended, because an interpretation is a very personal thing, and that felt like she was telling me my height was wrong. I got along with this instructor much better outside of class, and later she explained herself adequately. The Wendy theory sounds like someone did what I did and chose an interpretation, then found things to support it, rather than the other way around.
If I were asked what my favorite movie was, The Shining would immediately come to mind. Just like Kubrick is probably my favorite director. And, I know that must sound strange, not every Kubrick fan puts The Shining as their #1. But for me it's just about its immersion. The tone and pacing just work for me. there is something intoxicating almost about watching it alone in the dead of night when everything is dark and quiet, especially if its cold. I've always been a sort of, "night owl" so watching The Shining alone around 3AM is just something that i can always return to and find gratifying. And I have looked into various analyses of his films and perhaps my own interpretations are trash, but i definitely do sense a sort of conspiracy element. more blatant with work like Eyes Wide Shut, but i believe there are common themes throughout all of his films and that he picks particular stories or source material that he can make his own or insert his own interpretation, experiences and beliefs into. I have to mention before I forget how frustrating it is, the amount of continuity "errors" in The Shining. as if it had to have been deliberate, but, that begs the question as to why? simply to create an effect of uneasiness? just like his framing, symmetry and geometry. perhaps he wanted to mess with the subconscious mind. playing tricks on the viewer simply to create a feeling or tone. like something is off but you don't know exactly what it is, you more so sense it. I have to say my interpretations or theories may be a little more, "tin foil" and thats not to discredit him as an artist. He was truly a brilliant and talented storyteller and visionary. but, i think you can't exactly get where he did just on raw abilities. He was in some fraternity or another and found himself in the service of.. lets say, powerful, influential, rich, elite types.. they hired him and threw money at him because of how masterful he was at his craft. and i have to mention that Stephen King probably belongs to this same fraternity. and that both his original book and Kubrick's version of the story are still about the same things and it has everything to do with the ill effects of rituals and "mind control". Its also important to look into the other material that Stephen King published regarding this story, the continuation of the story when Danny grows up and faces off against a sort of Satanic cult that for a lack of better comparison, ritually murders children to sort of consume their "souls", and they more they suffer as they die the sweeter or stronger it is. and it really brings to mind theories of adrenachrome. and if you want to analyze movies, check out Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and From Hell ask yourself if Satanists really are dominating Hollywood. there is a pattern, actors playing similar roles that go beyond typecasting. like movies seemingly unrelated are actually tied in meaning or referencing the same things. And in The Shining its all about abuse and the effects on the mind. i think the Schizophrenia theory holds water or makes sense to a degree, for sure. especially considering the Apollo references, as if Kubrick was suggesting those theories were delusion, or even the idea itself that we went was a widely believed delusion. But, I'm more concerned, and about not the themes of alcoholism, but what trauma does to the brain and mind and how people dissociate or develop sort of alternate personalities. there is that moment of shock and horror that overcomes every single character. even Hollaran, not just Danny and his mother and father. they all have that wide eyed, deer in headlights look. thats when people are petrified with fear, as if they just shit themselves. thats when the brain is so overloaded that it splits and people escape or dissociate behind amnesia walls. From Danny's abuse he developed Tony, who takes over when Danny needs to escape the harsh reality of his abuse. and this sort of thing is generational, even the trait of being easily disassociated or hypnotized. people are born into these secret societies and cults. So its safe to assume that Danny's parents also suffered similarly when they were younger. Like the parents can have alternate personalities that take over and are the ones that do the abuse and create alters and perform the programming within their own children. Stephen King has similar themes in his other stories, especially IT.. the idea of fear, that causes the trauma and dissociation. The town and the adults almost seemed in on the whole thing, like they overlooked the disappearing children who ended up consumed.. i think the supernatural is used as a cover or is part of these characters delusions, again being the effects of trauma from ritual abuse. its deeper than mere alcoholism.. this is about the occult, i think. and the dark side of it. Not sure how else to explain it or break it down for a succinct conclusion. Danny was abused, emotionally, physically, psychologically and i dare say sexually. might be more obvious in the TV miniseries that was more true to the source material. For example, it keeps returning to his father, "transforming" into a Werewolf when he puts on a mask. yet again a reference to disassociation or an alternate personality. which was missing entirely in the film. But, to me its as if Danny was brought to that isolated hotel for his programming and was scared shitless in order to split his mind and program him. as if the ones that hurt you the most are the ones you love and trust the most. its as if both of his parents were in on it, and nobody is coming to help him except Hollaran who may be part of it. the ones tormenting Danny are his own parents and they don't even realize it. They seem to have their own handlers as well. and the scary thing is i honestly don't think i'm reading too far into things or being paranoid with my interpretation. I am under the impression that just like with ghosts, aliens, clowns, vampires, werewolves, clowns.. its all a coverup for the abuse people are doing to each other. say if someone claims to have been abducted by aliens, thats how they remember the trauma.. and thats how we see these stories, through the characters perception or eyes. and thats what they were convinced to believe, about being probed or whatever, well people are less likely to believe them if they think they're crazy. as compared to saying, men came into my room and forced themselves on me. the mind copes by believing it was ghosts or aliens and it covers the tracks of the abusers who whispered those lies into their ears before leaving. the mind has weird defense mechanisms and it can retreat or hide behind amnesia walls. we see Danny go through this throughout the film when he speaks to Tony. we even have the crucial scene in the beginning when Danny's mother is speaking with his doctor and she specifically asks about the traumatic event and Tony. And les not forget Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.. just like Stephen King has several themes he goes back to and works into new stories, i think Kubrick's style involved particular and related themes as well. and for the record there is something strange about the Apollo missions, all the photos and videos and interviews with the Astronauts. I wouldn't be shocked if Kubrick was utilized for such a thing and if it ended up being.. lets say.. traumatizing for him. i wonder if Danny and his parents were truly alone at the hotel or if all the ghosts were other people there. they were all "hallucinating" or suffering delusions or dreams and false memories. perhaps Jack went crazy with an axe out of defense of his family but it was turned around and made to seem like he killed them, when the true story.. some creeps were hiding in the hotel, lured this family there and .. had their way with them and then turned it all into a ghost story.
Absolutely NOTHING was debunked. Just because you use the word 'debunked' doesn't make it so. I watched the Wendy Theory vid and the author made a compelling argument where he professionally and intelligently made his points then presented the evidence. The evidence was consistent throughout his arguments as they progressed through the movie. The Rob Navarro vid makes sense based on the 'rules' he outlined on how the Wendy Theory worked. Those same rules applied to all the scenes in which he claimed Wendy was hallucinating. But Rob Ager makes a vid and just tells us how wrong Navarro is without presenting evidence or even tackling the substance of the Wendy Theory argument. Even Rob's in-depth analysis didn't present evidence as compelling as Navarro. Rob's vid is more of him talking about himself and expecting the viewer to just accept everything he says as he using the word 'debunked'. Personally, if you want me to agree with your argument, you had better present a logical argument with evidence. Rob makes a weird comparison between Jack and Danny as the old hag but that requires a lot of imagination with no evidence, at least, Navarro makes sense in his arguments. In Rob's text, he argues that a lot of the scenes are dream scenes. He states 'Remember also that Danny’s very first psychic episode in the film resulted in him being found unconscious “I remember mommy saying ‘wake up Danny, wake up’.” I disagree, it makes more sense that Danny was only saying what he thought his mother and the doctor wanted to hear and it had the extra benefit of being true. Danny wasn't in a dream, he seemed to be playing at the mirror and didn't seem to be as upset as his mother. I don't know what the truth is, that would be the director's call to explain. I only know that Navarro makes a better argument. Before you decide, watch both and tell me which one makes a better argument....or don't.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Additional points I forgot to put in the vid, plus response to comments (updated)
- The video author has not updated the description, nor responded to comments claiming I'm the author. Seems happy to let that assumption by some viewers continue.
- Good point by some in the comments section here. The vid is heavily linked to my work right at the beginning and in description on nothing more than a single continuity error observation. This is clearly an excuse to boost algorithm recognition of the video by associating it to my vids and audience.
- The Wendy Theory not only mismatches the larger themes of Kubrick's filmography, but has no correlation with the other well known themes in the movie (Native American genocide, Gold standard, the hotel as the United States, certain scenes being within Jack's head as he writes etc).
- For those who say that interpretations like the Wendy Theory aren't meant to be plausible, just "fun" ...The now common practice of deliberately positing "fun" ideas about themes that could have been put in a given film, but weren't, and disguising those ideas as actual interpretation ... is a disservice to genuine film study and to viewers.
- For those who claim that I come across as angry or jealous in this presentation or claiming that I am being abusive of the Wendy theory author. This is denial and projection on their part. At no point in this video do I swear, raise my voice or call the WT author names. This was a relaxed presentation, maybe a bit too relaxed being that I rambled a bit rather than doing a pre-scripted debunk. And, as I said in the video, there are lots of other videos out there offering theories on the Shining that have many more views than the Wendy Theory, but I don't bother debunking those because the authors didn't confuse their work with mine in any way. Here are some examples that I haven't even watched, but invite you to do so and make up your own mind on ...
ruclips.net/video/TmYcoozFYnU/видео.html 1.7 million views
ruclips.net/video/dv8KroxoAhk/видео.html 1.5 million views
ruclips.net/video/zRxfoU6_LhA/видео.html 1.8 million views Despite plagiarizing my work and changing their channel name (formerly known as Screen Prism) after I publicly called them out on it, I haven't even bothered watching this one.
ruclips.net/video/fHvk2zgUBpY/видео.html 934k views
Several in the comment section are claiming I didn't debunk the video, but when giving their reasoning they actually provide an altered version of the Wendy Theory (not the one I debunked). The simple fact that commenters are having to alter the theory to try and give it credibility illustrates that several of the debunk points I have given hold sufficient merit. Nevertheless, I'll address some of those altered theory points ...
- Someone suggested that scenes involving groups of more than two characters are real events. This doesn't work at all. The Gold Room scenes contain hundreds of people who aren't at th hotel and are actually from a different historical era. The twins scene involves three characters (two girls plus Danny) and same goes for the bear costumed man scene (two seen by Wendy plus Wendy herself).
- Some say the Wendy Theory works alongside other interpretations of the film and that Kubrick meant them all to be true. First, that logic could be used to shove any interpretation into the movie and ignore all conflicting evidence. Second, the Wendy Theory video says in its title that it "finally explains" the film, meaning it supposed to be the definitive interpretation.
- For those who say that my statements at the end of there being some details that point the idea Wendy might be an abuser, this is not an endorsement of the Wendy Theory at all, which posits Jack as wholly innocent. My take on this at the moment is that Wendy trying to cover up for Jack's abuse, shares a certain amount of guilt and responsibility. This is totally different to the Wendy Theory.
Rob,
I’ve watched a lot of your videos, especially over the Shining. I respect your editing chops and carving out a business for yourself.
I think you’re taking things personally. Whether or not that seems rational, I didn’t see you responding to the actual points in the Wendy Theory, but talking about being linked to the author, or the author being anonymous: you focused on the author, rather than on their work.
For example, they posit that everything with witnesses (I.e., the crowded hotel lobby at the beginning) is real: you did NOT mention or address the color of Danny’s bicycle, as referenced in the Wendy Theory, nor did you mention the snow cats position.
Furthermore, I think it fits perfectly with the chauvinistic misogynistic style of “bat-shit crazy bitch.”
Really, Jack comes across as a Saint with Herculean patience viewed through this lens
You staked the territory, and want to fend off those trying to piggy-back on your work, or take advantage of you: that makes sense.
I want you to know, I’ve watched your videos so many times and referenced you to friends, and if I ever made a video, I might give similar tribute, in the beginning, as they did.
- If anyone is foolish enough to believe that you would put up a Shining video not on your own channels under an assumed name starting with Rob then I don't know what much can be done for them!
- Well that is smart by the author if that is the case. That said there are plenty of Shining videos and typing in "Shining analysis" is going to show several of your videos. I just did it now and you have 4 of the first 13 listed.
- As my previous comment it's a theory but not a terribly plausible one within the context of the movie.
- Good point. I guess then it comes to the author's intent which we can't know. Maybe it's just pure deception or even the author deceiving themselves! Some videos are clearly total product. I haven't seen this Wendy theory for a while so I don't recall.
@@ruthprudence He did address the bicycle, since it's part of the intentional continuity errors. And those are the main premise of the demonstration, so addressing all of them wouldn't change much.
@@ruthprudence Thanks for your thoughts.
I talked about the context at the start of the video and went into the content afterward. does it not seem straqnge to you the video author hasn't corrected the description or responded to comments by ppl who think I made that vid?
Regarding the continuity errors you mentioned, I did talk about the general appearance of such errors as not being evidence of Wendy hallucinations specifically. Also mentioned that virtually all the scenes have continuity errors and that most are likely deliberate, but for the purpose of disorienting the viewer and creating as feeling of something not quite right in the hotel. The mismatching sets has already been acknowledged by the co-producer Jan Harlan as being for that very purpose.
@@ruthprudence I completely agree with you Ruth. I know there are more discontinuity errors that I am not familiar with, so that, supposedly, with enough of them, any odd theory can be put forward, but Mr. Ager did not directly confront the points made. Pesonal attacks of style (electronic voice over, anonymity) over substance is a big red flag. One of the biggest points in favour of the Wendy theory, which Mr. Ager does not debunk, is that it finally explains the most famous plot hole of the entire movie, in fact one of the most famous plot holes in all of movie history(!): How did Jack get out of the freezer? For that alone the theory deserves more respect. The problem here is a lot of people have devoted years of analysis to this film, and there is inevitably a negative reaction when you have so much time invested, and something comes along that puts your efforts in the shade. Note I am not saying I am 100% convinced this theory entirely covers Kubrick's overarching narrative intention, but I think it is quite possible he had this option running in his mind somewhere...: I do think it could potentially be a revolutionary understanding of a film like we have rarely seen, but I am waiting for a convincing counter-argument, not being an expert on this particular film.
For some reason I was fixated on the small island in the opening shot - turns out it's named Wild Goose Island (as in wild goose chase). Is this pure coincidence or is there a chance Kubrick told us in the first 10 seconds that he created an unsolvable maze of a film?
That is a stunningly excellent observation!
I just fact checked you and your correct. Wild Goose Island is in Eastern Shore of Lake McDonald at Glacier National Park is where they filmed the driving scene. It's beautiful and that scene should be used in Glacier National Parks advertisements.
Yes!! I love this idea and correlates with what I've been thinking (also in line with the Wendy theory) perhaps there is no "right" answer. Maybe Wendy was crazy, maybe it was Jack or maybe it was the hotel etc etc OR maybe it's a movie about potentiality - the potentiality for anyone or anything to be evil.
It almost seems impossible to comprehend how Kubrick could have orchestrated this but if anyone could it would be him.
fits with the wendy theory. trying to get anywhere or even trying to help a victim complex covert narcissist is definitely a wild goose chase. he probably took them there to help her.
@@anima6035 Yeah, the multiplicity of possible - probable - readings is how I've come to most appreciate the film, that Kubrick intentionally devised it to be at least 3 intricately interwoven and parallel narratives reflecting the 3 main characters' experiences, plus a more comprehensive and objective one which is his confession about his involvement with the Apollo 11 moon landing and the staged footage he crafted, ostensibly to be broadcast if a disaster occurred, as an insurance policy for NASA and the Government. I believe the Gov made him an offer he couldn't refuse, and he resented it.
One has to admit that, whether absolutely correct or not, the "Wendy Theory" does give a new perspective on the line "there's a crazy lady in the hotel with us".
Also it gives like the most convincing answer of who let Jack out of the freezer.
@@Sanju-mo6in No, the most convincing answer to that is tbe ghost of Delbert Grady, at least for those of us who aren't ashamed to take "scary movies" at face value.
I like all theories and ideas. Garbage or not, I enjoy the discussions.
I have to admit that Wendy is the least liked character in that film by most people and giving her agency is a twist I wasn't expecting.
If you read the book. You'd understand why the "Wendy thoery" is bullshit.
10:29 video starts
(in summary in those ten minutes he says he is not the producer of the wendy theory video)
Even though nobody thought he was.
@@ruslanondricek5053 exactly lol
thank you lol that was the longest and worst intro ever
He has no evidence to debunk the wendy theory. He talked 10 minutes straight about other movies and the producer. The paper being back in the typewriter says it all right there
Lost me at the end. Asking the Wendy Theory video maker to show their true ID? That was weird.
His daughter, who worked on the film, told me that Wendy turns into the strong female hero of the film. In the beginning she is a weak, abused woman who then finds the resoucefulness to fight back against Jack. If you notice, Jack does scary stuff, but Wendy does the most actual, physical damage with her baseball bat and knife (between Wendy and Jack). Kubrick's own notes in his copy of The Shining never references Wendy as an abuser. He did wonder why she stayed with him, though. I remember Kubrick writing in the margin, contemplating the reason why she stayed with Jack after the drunk dislocation of his arm, "Danny, Love, or Sex"?
I thought the Goofy like outfit she wears at the beginning was Kubrick showing us she was dumb to stay with Jack, and to go with him to the hotel.
Ask yourself why she was wearing that outfit.
She was appearing passive, non-threatening. She was dressing in a way to pacify her violent husband, but also to appear slightly childlike (in the hope he'd target her rather than danny, perhaps?).
As someone who can see the sex abuse angle, and who's worked with abused mums and children, it's actually shocking to see how right Kubrick got that look if he didn't intend it. It's scarily common for partners to become incredibly passive and almost comedically weak because they're utterly convinced that they are the cause of the abuse, so the only way they can prevent it is to become the target.
Absolutely, and that's why I've never agreed with the idea she was just a "Rag Doll" etc. She was beaten down, physically and emotionally but as with most Kubrick films, he DOES leave little glimmers of hope and Wendy and Danny both apply to that. Wendy is very brave and how many kids would do what Danny does... With the Shine or not? I've always felt like Kubricks films are linked. Similar to Bergman or Fellini, he would carry over ideas. Danny as the proverbial "Star Child" isn't out if the realm. I'm not saying he's Dave Bowman reincarnate, but moreso just a carrying on of the idea of if that person was born, how would it work?
It's a little bit of all these things.
yeah and just like shelley's acting when she finally sees danny in the maze and he runs to her and she embraces him is so gorgeous and idk i would feel really cheated to k that she's just insane and is the one destroying her little son. people use the deleted hospital scene where jack isn't mentioned and ullman tells her there was nothing "unusual" going on in the hotel, but i thinjk he's refering to the blood gushing elevators and the skeletons wendy saw and the woman who strangled danny. he doesn't mention jack but that's probably because shes in a hospital after almost being murdered by him, it would seem insensitive for him to say something about him at that point imo.
I dunno man. I think you're being a bit dismissive. Guy reaches a little for sure but I don't think reasons like "it doesn't fit" or "it doesn't make a lot of sense" are very convincing. I don't think it's only about continuity errors tho he certainly brings that up a lot. I'm happier to accept that as symbolic of insanity etc. But I think it's a little weak that you'd put out a video pointing out the absence of the bear rug symbolically referring to Jack's sexual abuse and criticize this as far fetched. Both make sense and require a little reach.
Anyway the real point I wanted to make was yea I don't think it's only linked to continuity errors. I think it's quite interesting because since the very first time I watched this there seemed to be something dramatically off with how everyone was interacting. Things didn't line up. Expressions didn't fit the narrative. And if you give the benefit of the doubt to the Wendy theory that kind of goes away.
First off she just seems spacey and out of it. Especially when she approaches him at the typewriter. Before he loses his shit at her she's just looking totally off. And then afterwards Jack does appear almost, confused and perplexed. Like what the fuck are you doing/saying? It happens way more than a few times as well where he's just trying his best to cope with her instability. I've always felt as well the scene with the bat he 'really' seems so even and measured, fully expecting her to just hand it to him never thinking she's going to actually swing. It really, really does feel like someone trying to talk a crazy person down off the ledge.
Also the part with the carpet. Man. I don't know if that's a continuity error. The pattern changes entirely and the shot is set up with Danny's toys and the ball in the exact same place but reversed the pattern. That feels dramatically intentional. Esp when Jack goes back and it's reversed the same way cuz they clearly have two patterns for that spot in the set. There's other continuity errors as well like major set pieces being removed. Lamps added to ceilings or removed which would have meant taking it out and drywalling everything.
The part with Danny sucking his thumb after being hurt as well he looks totally confused. And that flash of her looking over the radios or what have you when Danny goes in room 237? That's definitely suggesting something. With her spacey out of touch explanation of how Danny hurt his arm. And the fact that Jack knows Grady's name but he only told her his last name, and then he shows up with a different first name. Then the super freakout at the end with all these wacked out scenes where she's seeing the river of blood, skeletons, bear guy.
A whole lot of things make a lot more sense if she's the one actually going crazy. Not saying this is canon now or anything but I do wonder about the consistency of things in all the other scenes of the movie regarding the continuity and I honestly do think this movie totally makes sense if she's the one losing her mind. I don't think it's a home run but it's awfully compelling. Calling it garbage isn't really fair by any means. Considering you've made theories about the freezer door opening on opposite sides giving guy a bit of rope on his own continuity errors seems appropriate.
Yeah....what he said!
Wasn't there also an unused final scene where Ullman visits Wendy in the hospital? I thought there was dialogue in it that inferred it had all been in her head? If I am remembering this right, that could be why Kubrick left it out. Too defining?
Which part of the movie shows Jack mentioning Grady's story ( half name )to Wendy ?
@@m.n.s.s2825at the start, after he got the job. He called Wendy to tell her about the Grady incident because he knew that would excite her because she's into horror.
That´s not a debunk. And dozens of "real" continuity errors in a Kubrick movie? Ridiculous.
That's not an argument. I also never said anything about dozens of real continuity errors. Ridiculous ;)
😮 Exactly. Pretty implausible
Every Kubrick movie has continuity errors. Remember: his perfectionism was all about creating a great artistic experience, not in avoiding "dings" in a Cinema Sins video.
Actual video starts at 11:05
He preambles for ever. Edit: FWIW this video isn't worth your time. TLDR is: he disagrees
top comment
Thank you
Yeah, guys rant was pretty annoying.
For real
people being butthurt about this need to realize, it's ok to have standards when you're judging the validity of theories. you can't adopt a "everybody wins, everybody's view is valid" mentality when it comes to appreciating an artistic vision. his explanation of wanting to distance himself from this theory is understandable
I agree with a commenter below: not so much a debunking as a disagreement.
Facts. Great movies are best left to interpretation. Especially this one.
Thanks, I don't need to watch this video then if it's not debunking lol
100% agreed! this video is pointless. i can understand tough if rob doesn't likes to be quoted without his agrement.
In a way it is a debunking. It's pointing out that simply saying "continuity errors = hallucinations," is both baseless and not an effective argument. Wendy does not display signs of Schizophrenia or any other mental condition that would cause hallucinations. There is nothing tying the continuity errors to the idea that Wendy is mentally unsound much less abusive. You cannot "disprove," this argument because it is intentionally vague, but Rob has successfully explained why it isn't convincing.
There's a lot of you here, Navarro
I believe that Kubrick intentionally crafted clues and hints that would lead to multiple interpretations. This would create more uncertainty in the audience... it is that uncertainty that made The Shining so effective as a horror movie. Jack goes crazy. Jack imagines his book's story 'come to life'. Danny's Shining reflects Jack's and Wendy's fears back on them. Jack AND Danny AND the hotel ALL Shine, causing interference and amplification of their imaginations. The hotel is haunted with the spirits of natives. Wendy is nuts and hallucinating it all. All could be true, but the audience doesn't know which one is true. That's good horror.
This movie was about me. Problem is, I’m not schizophrenic and neither am I. Haha
@@olakrez. well, I was sort of kidding but, if I’m not totally delusional, I really do think it was about me and Mark levin and Bon Jovi are trying to make me go crazy. Yup. I said it
But I’m not schizophrenic. I am suffering from amnesia. Apparently
@@olakrez. no. I know you all see me. Stop lying
@@olakrez. I don’t know what that means. Did I kill you in another life? I’m not kidding
My son jokingly told me that in the scene where Danny meets the twin girls, that it is Danny that imagines chopping them to pieces, and the thought shocks him into running away from them.
That part will never be the same for me again.
He only used one reference to your theories which was the props and environment being moved around during scenes. It spent maybe 10 seconds showing your website on the subject and was only used as a springboard for his theory. Personally, I found a decent amount of info very interesting and the now deleted ending by kubrick kind of adding credence to the theory.
Edit: After watching the video through, this isn't really a debunk video, but more of a ''this guy isn't me, and this is not my theory''. I think the amount of layers of context this movie has is almost impossible to determine and even then our most beloved theories are still just theories after all. I have watched yours over the years and have found them entertaining just as I found the wendy theory entertaining, but if you do debunk in the future, try not to make it so personal and focus more on the points of the theory itself.
@@ANALOGCLIPS the exact vibe i got watching this video
@@ANALOGCLIPS ... And you notice he doesn't explain all the things going on in Wendy's kitchen or house with Danny only where Jack is supposedly interviewing at the Overlook Hotel! Like the stacked hording of books all over, while on the phone with Jack, Danny collapse in bathroom seeing a nightmare of what will come if they go to Hotel possibly but the missing Donald Duck sticker on the door, movements of Donald Duck on desk bedroom of Danny's room, laying on a bear pillow (where homosexual acts happen later where again Jack is not around), the doctor being a woman and his mother checking on his health as he is in underwear, etc. Kubrick ambiguous messages (if any).
7 minutes in and the whole video so far is about himself. Waste of time
@@jeffhardwick3323 12 minutes in i though the same thing. This is just him ranting about the Wendy theory not being his. And then he goes to "lets look at the evidence" and pretty much sais that "if you look away from the evidence the theory falls".
This is not debunking, my view of that movie is still changed.
I agree. This is the second 'debunk' video Rob has made coincidentally, after admitting he didn't discover the theories himself. Also these 'debunks' don't debunk anything. They just disassociate Rob from the theories
One thing that debunks the Wendy theory to me is he never explains Dick Hallorin calling the sheriff's office after Danny shined the incident in room 237. How could Wendy hallucinate that if she doesn't know he is coming?
Possibly the Halloran coming to check out on them was also hallucination
If you are aware of the deleted ending which shows Ullman was visiting Wendy in the hospital and he told her there is nothing wrong in the hotel. Everything is fine and her story is all in her head. Police even looked into the maze and didn't find anything ( not even Jack's body)
So figure if Halloran is really dead then why police wouldnt found anything on overlook hotel ?
It could also mean Wendy never left the overlook with Haloran's Snowcat but the hotel's Snowcat which she hallucinated destroyed by jack
@@m.n.s.s2825 But he said Dick Halloran was at the Overlook Hotel and Wendy took Danny and left Halloran there
@@wayneirwin4994
He ? You mean the guy who made the Wendy theory ?
Yes I heard it too, and I believe he missed some crucial/or probably the biggest " continuity error" which could lead to the theory that Halloran was also happening to her delusion and not actually real.
For example, Notice the scene where Halloran was giving Wendy a Kitchen tour. Just before the halloran opens the refrigerator ( not the pantry ) door to you will notice the door was open from the left side ( from outside ) but when from inside you will see they are entering from the right side. Totally flipped
Notice when Halloran opens the refrigerator, The outside area was "The Kitchen" Wendy was so thrilled about ( Like she can't tell what to do with all that stuff ) but when They were exiting from the refrigerator you will see the whole location has changed. The kitchen is replaced by a corridor ( with an exit sign )
Probably the most noticeable " continuity error"even can be spotted by average viewers and obviously left on purpose
I suggest you revisit the movie again and check it for yourself
It seemed to me that the uploader had honest intentions and was paying you respect.
About halfway through and zero debunking has happened...
You people have no patience? Jesus, calm down.
I don’t think a lot of people actually believed in this theory as much as they were fascinated by how the theory uses certain parts of the movie for its argument, and I found the theory more entertaining than some of the ones in the Room 237 documentary, but I’ll happily watch a debunk video from Rob Ager anyway haha
where 237 docu takes the cake is the moon landing stuff. like, after years of ignoring that conspiracy theory in favor of others i cared about more, i finally looked. watched "american moon (english version)" on yt and read kaysing's "We never went to the moon: america's 30 billion dollar swindle" and about 10 minutes into that study i said YEAH WE DIDN'T GO.
it's blindingly obvious. and knowing that, i just don't see how anyone could see danny in that apollo sweater and dismiss the idea that it's connected to kubrick and the faking of the apollo project.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 I’ll check it out!
True
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 the Wendy theory is way better than moon landing BS lmao!!
@@kevinnelson198 well, yeah. eh, idk. believing we landed on the moon is just something people do from being brainwashed, not malice so much. like, the moon buggy was bigger than the craft it allegedly flew in on. "we haven't gotten past the van allen belts yet, but plan to" - NASA. lmao! just 2 hilarious examples of hundreds of evidence points.
I see that at a certain point, the movie completely dives into the novel the character Jack is writing. It takes place at the hotel, and features the scenes we see. You know Kubrick is telling you that there is a shift in realities because there are several changes including the typewriter color/model and the removal of a giant wooden sculpture in the main lobby. The Jack in the novel wears the red jacket.
Agreed. Excellent point about the jacket. It even gets a mention when he talks to Grady.
How does that really change anything? The idea that there's switching from reality to his book is pretty blatant as far as theories go. But is it real or his actual book is an overt premise. But we don't know what the book he's writing is at all. It could be a story about a caretaker going mad in a haunted hotel. Or it could be the story of a caretaker who's wife goes mad in a hotel and murders him. If it's based on continuity errors or that's bunk I don't think the theory that she's the insane one hinges on those errors at all.
@@wallyosmond9204 Jack isn't intending to write _a book_ there, though. He's only working on the outline, as he states.
In fact, it's only when he hears of the Grady murders that he knows what his idea for his next book is. Literally right AS he gets the job! So Jack isn't simply going from concept to writing the entire novel in under 5 months.
The changes from his green and blue to red garb, light to dark typewriter, the central wood sculpture disappearing - as well as many other smaller "continuity errors" (that aren't errors at all) - indicate dream-logic and *a certain* 'unreality'. Notice when he wakes up, and that these specific details change once he does.
How could you say the guys video wasn’t genuine? He put more work into it than you did In this one. The thumbnail is click bait (like most videos) and isnt meant to be taken as fact. He says the entire video this is what he thinks and nothing more. He used your website to have all the continuity errors in hand. As a viewer we can take the errors as fact since you already have been accepted as a creditable researcher. You would have preferred him to spent (however long it would take) in finding the errors himself before making a theory? Or better yet he could have pretending he found the error and not give you credit.
How do you personally explain all the continuity errors? Are we suppose to believe they were accidental? Would you say it was all 100% an accident? If you consider some to be deliberate then there has to be a reason. Not saying his reasons are correct but then I ask you to make a video and explain. Just know I’m going to say your video isn’t genuine. Sorry
This video is ridiculous. He spends 12 minutes talking about himself then gives a bunch of weak arguments about how the Wendy theory is, "garbage" debunks nothing, then at the end says he agrees with the idea that Wendy could be the one abusing Danny, which is the whole point of the Wendy theory.
He does have a point in that the Wendy theory would be difficult to debunk because its based on her hallucinating the majority of the events. But the linchpin of those hallucinations is the continuity errors. And do you know how you could go a long way into actually debunking the theory? Show us another Kubrick movie with a huge amount of continuity errors. Now that wouldnt necessarily be proof that the theory is wrong, but its a lot better than, "I didnt make the Wendy theory video and I dont agree with it."
The Wendy theory isnt perfect, nor are any of the theories that people have come up with over the years. But it DOES make sense, it DOES explain much of what is going on in the movie, and for him to just dismiss it as "garbage" without any real in depth analysis is extremely lazy and disingenuous.
I don't know, If you have watched all of the other Rob Agar/ Collative Learning videos (he also has a website with a lot of written essays too) Rob Agar spends an absolutely inordinate amount of time coming through all the inconsistencies in the movie. As in all of them. What I've taken from his other videos and writings are he doesn't believe there are any continuity errors at least intentional ones. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says (for example his theory regarding Indian genocide and the gold standard) but at least in his scripted videos he does tend to at least source why he is saying the things he says and where he is getting his information from.
I'm just saying if you haven't watched his other scripted videos don't necessarily judge this one too harshly yet. You may end up not agreeing with his ideas either but I don't think anyone can say that he isn't thorough.
Not a debunk video, just a guy being dismissive of other interpretations for 20 minutes.
Rob....It it took you 12 minutes to get past talking about yourself, and another three to get to anywhere that resembles the meat of the matter.
While I appreciate some of your work (however much of it is long-winded and redundant), this has to be your lowest moment in terms of concept and execution.
I totally respect you wanting to distance yourself from certain people or theories but the tone of your voice reminds me a loT of how my very old USC film professors talk down to students when they don't like something because it doesn't live up to their "Hollywood ideals". nothing wrong with it but kinda rubs me the wrong way. everyone's entitled to their own opinions and everyone takes away different things from different films- I understand wanting to de confuse people on where theories came from tho. I am a USC film student and I love making and studying films and I have lots of respect for those who do but RUclips is not really the platform to be gatekeeping who is "qualified enough" to talk about films. have been fascinated by your theories for a long time but the tone in this video comes across as very condescending and mirrors how an older generation of filmmakers looks down upon the next generation-not saying that's what's happening here just reminds me of it.
While I can definitely see why you would feel that way I also understand how frustrating it must be to put so much effort into researching the creative process of making a movie, analyzing scenes for hours and providing evidence for different theories for many years (since 2008, I believe?) just to have a fellow creator cite your work in the description of a video while dismissing it completely and calling the main plot of the movie a mere hallucination. I highly doubt he even read most of it because if he did he would‘ve noticed that his theory doesn‘t really add up with Kubrick‘s vision and the clues that we do have. The Wendy Theory (although fun and interesting) doesn‘t make much sense, especially if we take Stanley Kubrick‘s notes and general meticulousness into consideration. He just wouldn’t make a movie where the main plot or at least the plot twist is something as cliche as a hallucination or a dream. I think what rubbed Rob Ager (and me, not gonna lie) the wrong way is that the creator of the Wendy Theory Video claimed that finally, after all these years and so many failed attempts, *this* is *the one* that explains it all. It just comes across as disrespectful because it a) doesn‘t and b) disregards the insane amount of effort and actual solid evidence that went into other theories by hundreds of different people. In my opinion, Rob Navarro should have just described it as a unique take on the plot (which it is and in itself makes it worth watching) instead of portraying it as the be all end all. I don‘t know, that just seems condescending to me. I get where you‘re coming from, though.
I completely agree. His attitude in this is really rude and this debunk video, like his others, only shuts down discourse in favor of his opinion. Also, he really didn’t debunk anything, his entire arguement is a straw man.
@@Milenaiguess you can’t have it both ways. If Stanley kubrick is so keen on details then explain the dozens of continuity errors in the film? Btw, those continuity errors would require building construction half the time so explain them? Your argument, like rob Agers, is full of holes
This isn't a "debunk" video. It's an "I disagree" video. A debunk would give reasons why the Wendy Theory CAN'T be right or examples of what it fails to answer.
This video does give that. The Wendy Theory vid hinges massively on the idea that continuity errors can be used to distinguish real events from hallucinated ones. But virtually ever scene in the film has continuity errors. That alone annihilates the theory. Then there's all the other things I mentioned.
@@robag555 The Wendy Theory video sets a baseline for what is true and what isn't. The walkthrough of the hotel at the beginning of the movie is the real Overlook. Jump to 6:17 of the Wendy Theory video.
I smell a Concorde fallacy.
@@robag555 does Kubrick make very many continuity errors? I thought he was meticulous about details in every frame
@@robag555 Kubrick would not have so many errors in his work I believe.. The Wendy Theory is very believable imo 👍
To believe The Wendy Theory, one must buy into The Shining’s continuity errors being purposeful prop manipulation, not production crew “accidental errors.” Unintended continuity errors are commonly made during scenes requiring multiple shooting sessions to complete, up to multiple days, which demand separate set ups.
I find the scene where Wendy approaches a typing Jack compelling. The background chair and side table disappears and reappears in the closely edited clips, but Jack’s hair remains precisely in the same place as do the folds and wrinkles in his shirt, not to mention the camera never shifts, and Jack’s position in the frame is the same. This is an impossible feat if the final edit was cobbled together from separate shooting sessions.
So, this sequence of reaction shots of Jack were filmed during the same session, and there seems to have been an orchestrated effort to manipulate the chair and table. This begs the question, “Why?” I’m not stating The Wendy Theory is that “why”… but why?
I mean, those continuity errors do happen if you're doing very few takes and have to mash them together somehow to push the film into release. When you do HUNDREDS of takes, the idea is that every detail should fit. The argument that this amount of takes would propel continuity errors is quite preposterous. Sure, chairs are moved between days of shooting, but it serves exactly the contrary, that you now have enough takes to do PROPER CONTINUITY. Unless you're deliberately trying to conjure these errors as part of the plot and redoing the script in the editor's POV. John Ford used to force continuity between scenes to avoid the editor cutting out too much. Kubrick, I believe, manipulated those takes purposefully and masterfully.
I have also heard the suggestion that moving the chair and other things could be interpreted as the hotel messing about. It's the Overlook; there's stuff we miss that add to the unsettled feeling we get.
This idea that not ONE error has ever, ever slipped passed Kubrick cause he’s sooooooooooo smart is just ridiculous.
How are light switches being on the wall and then not an accident? Those have to be purposeful continuity errors.
Kubrick went to a great deal of trouble to create an interior that is architecturally impossible. Making objects and light switches move around is probably part of that. You may not notice these details, but your brain did, and it makes you feel uneasy without understanding why.
I disagree with the notion that he has to expose his real life identity on the Internet, but he shouldn't have cited you without making it clear that he isn't associated with you in any way. Not that it seems like he had an actually good reasons to cite you to begin with.
Agree... I know The Wendy Theory is not a likeable Theory because the amount of hate I recieve in Reddit just asking about it.
Also... whoever that made the Wendy Theory video knew stuff that Rob Ager never addressed. The continuity errors of mounted light fixtures, mounted switches and mounted stage designs. Sure chairs, lamps and rugs are easy to move. But adding and removing mounted items is a whole different continuity error.
Also I have no idea if this true or not and I am not a fan of the computer voice but someone posed that maybe the reason for the computer voice is that narrator/author doesn't speak English as a first language
@@richardstaschy809 Excellent points. Furniture is one thing, but mounted items another entirely...
@@wrathofatlantis2316 I originally thought the Wendy Theory was a joke, but I took a few days to investigate Rob Navarro claim.
Wendy is reading The Catcher in the Rye and she reveals a dog-eared fold.
Believe it or not. Catcher and Dog-eared Fold are reference to Oswald. The FBI searched Oswald room and among all the books found, they said Catcher was an important find because of the dog-eared fold.
I believe this reference was muddled because John Lennon murder.
Also, Rob Navarro was wrong about the kool-aid (he claims this is where Wendy will put the kool-aid.) Im 100% positive the kool-aid is reference to Jonestown 1978.
@@richardstaschy809 It's not as difficult as you think. They are just props given sticky backs. Even ceiling lights can be battery operated. I really don't think those appearing/disappearing light switches went "into" the wall requiring openings.
8:18 this could simply be that the creator of this video is capable of writing english, but may not speak it very well, or with a heavy accent that would either turn the audience away, or make it difficult to understand the creator.
HA! Ager is jelly someone put up a better video and original theory. I doubt he was invited to participate in room 237. The Wendy video doesn't cite ager at all, it says that it's presenting something different than what ager or anyone else has presented. He is talking about disassociating himself from the videos and here he is injecting himself into things to get attention.
The comments he refs are all new and totally no-name accounts, most likely ager himself posted or had folks he knows post. And then ager is talking about how the creator didn't "call" him to see what he thinks. That super narcissistic and needy.
Then he goes on about how stupid it is and makes ad home attacks and presumptions about the creator. He spends nearly half of this video just bashing it and not debunking anyone and his "debunking" is just saying he doesn't agree which is fine but that doesn't mean debunking, that is ager's opinion and then cites his own theories as proof of things as if he is somehow the world's authority on the movie. We call that circular logic.
When ager talks about the first example in the Wendy video, he says the creator gives no examples of his theory, and anyone who has watched it knows he gives many examples, such as the demeanor of Jack, the missing chair, the paper Jack rips up still being in the typewriter, and a couple others. He says just general things glossing over the examples and then ager says "I don't think so" which again, is his opinion (totally fine) but again, is acting as if he is the end all be all on the shining, then begins to plug his own material again, just hocking the content he hides behind a paywall saying "oh he is not going to get into things" but go to his site pay for it. Followed by , "I've not found anything" and says "it's garbage" and he "disagrees".
Pretty sad that ager is going on like this, desperate for attention. This sorta sounds like the other video ager did where he claims someone plagiarized his material.
Literally, there is no debunking at all. It's nothing but ager just saying "its garbage" and "go to my website".
Sorry Ager, I don't mean to put you down but this sorta undermines your own credibility as a content creator.
Based on what I saw from his channel he seems like a fan inspired by you (or is a very elaborate troll) and he probably uses a robot voice because he's not a native english speaker (or he's super shy maybe?). If he's not a native speaker he may have a thick accent that he might believe is hard to understand or think could be off-putting in some way.
I quite like the Wendy theory. That’s not saying I think that it’s correct or what Kubrick intended. The theory itself though I found interesting. The idea that Wendy was “the crazy lady” in room 237 was something that I thought might have worked. As I say I don’t think the theory is right, but it’s interesting to think about the film if it had been made with that underlying theme. Thinking of it as an alternative version it’s intriguing. Keep up the great work Rob.
I'm with you there, my impression of the theory overall is that it adds transformative value to the work and offers a whole new story and a whole new interpretation to the existing text, in the same way that Kubrick's film itself was an interpretation of the work by King. Death of the author and all that. The original intent and the idea of a single, static, "factually correct" interpretation of a work are what seem less meaningful or important to me, as compared to what any one individual brings to it and then subsequently takes away from it. If they can speak well and compellingly to support that idea, so much the better.
I don't find the content interesting when the video makes truth claims about itself "The Wendy Theory is the best and simplest explanation that has ever been put forth" and "This Finally Explains The Shining!"
Plus the Wendy Theory has to invalidate other events in The Shining in order to function correctly.
the best part of the Wendy theory video is that she really rolls the ball to Danny and the transition to her after the room 237 scene
@@ericolson1430 yeah I honestly like idea and think it’s actually really creepy. I once heard a theory about An American Werewolf In London where David isn’t actually a werewolf but it’s all in his mind. Perhaps running around believing he was a wolf with a machete or something lol. Again you can poke holes in it and say that’s not at all what was intended in the film, but that’s really not the point. It’s interesting to think about an alternative version of the film where that was what was intended. Kinda reminded me of the true crime story about Austin Harrouff
People worry that the Wendy theory takes away from most of the other themes of the film. Such as genocide of Native Americans, racism, misogyny, power, greed, human evilness, etc. Unless you think the Wendy theory adds to all of those?
Why does he need to show his face or voice to make a video? You seem to be hating the maker not debunking the theory.
Ooh, more stuff to get me through the night shift. Hope you're having a great (start to the) festive season sir
Haha, that's a good one! When you can afford to watch videos during your night shift, make sure to hold on to this job! ;-)
@@foolishwatcher 16 years and counting
Not a lot of actual debunking in this video. Pretty much a waste of time. Eyebrow Cinema's "The Wendy Theory is Bad" does a good debunking, especially about continuity errors, but I don't agree on a lot of his arguments. The question I have about continuity errors is, where's all the testimony from the film crew that Kubrick instructed them to put in this or that and then remove this or that?
You don’t debunk anything; you disagree with it. Which is fine. The Shining is operating on so many planes at the micro level, that it seems logical that the film is operating thematically/plot-wise on wholly other levels, simultaneously, as well. Many, apparently different truths, being truthful together. There are many very clever videos on this film out there, that are very valid in very different ways.
I agree. I think Wendy Theory is an excellent interpretation of the film.
I wished Rob Ager talked about Wendy reading Catcher in the Rye. Believe it or not. She reveals a dog-eared fold in the book for almost 10 seconds. Catcher in the Rye and the Dog-eared fold was a reference to the FBI claiming that Catcher was an important find in the Oswald investigation.
I do find it interesting that Stanley Kubrick The Shining movie is similar to David Lynch later films. And that Eraserhead was Stanley Kubrick favorite movie.
I wonder if David Lynch made the Wendy Theory video. Whoever made the video had a real deep knowledge of the movie, especially since Rob Ager pointed out that he didn't see some of the continuity errors that Rob Navarro points out.
10:32 Is the start of actually looking at the theory, the first 10 1/2 minutes are Rob Ager pointing out an important distinction about the authorship of the original video and the room 237 documentary having nothing to do with him. Not saying skip the first part necessarily, but there aren't chapters on the video etc so thought this might be helpful to some
I love your channel and your insights but I don't really feel that you debunked this one but rather that you just don't agree with it. Yes, the other Rob, that clearly has a different last name as you, did mention your videos as an influence but never stated or even implied that you endorsed his point of view. It merely seemed that he wanted to acknowledge you as someone whose work informed his own ideas. I felt that was pretty clear and never saw any reason to assume otherwise. Furthermore, I think that your own interpretations of the abuse themes of Kubrick do work inside the Wendy Theory. Now, whether your right about inconsistencies in correlation between continuity errors and Wendy's theorized psychosis is correct or not, I can't say. There are too many details in that movie to keep up with, but nothing you said in your own video has convinced me to readily dismiss it as wrong. You spent so much time emphasizing that you weren't affiliated with the video, that it feels like this is what you really cared about, more than anything and that's fine if you felt it wasn't clear. I think it's important to be understood in where you stand, especially if lines are getting crossed. However, again, I really think other Rob was also clear where he was coming from and it seems unfair to suggest that he was trying to ride on your coattails, at least to the extent of trying to fool people in believing there was an association. If he did a few tricks to boost the algorithm, I wouldn't let that bother you. As far as I can see it would boost yours too if it caught on... or not. Is it that big a deal? (Honest question, there.) As someone who has let misunderstandings get me out of sorts in the past I think the situation may require a little more pondering. My two cents in the age of the internet. Cheers.
Great reply...
Something I learned in the summer.
Wendy was reading Catcher in the Rye and she reveals a dog-eared fold which IS reference to the FBI claiming that Catcher was an important find in the Oswald investigation.
I'm also learning that Stanley Kubrick really liked Eraserhead so much that he made the cast of the Shining watch it.
Yes, emphasizing my lack of involvement or endorsement of the Wendy Theory was my priority here. Cheers.
I disagree he was simply giving me credit. The only thing in his video that matches my work is a single chair continuity error. And, despite some folks in the comment section claiming I made his video, he hasn't provided any clarification responses that I'm aware of. And there's no evidence that's his real name, thanks to fake voice and lack of links to any other online presence he has.
The presence of continuity errors in virtually all scenes of the movie, in itself, demolishes the theory being that most of it hinges on continuity as a differential marker for hallucination vs "real" scenes. It's a very easy debunk just on that level, but more is outlined in the vid :)
@@collativelearning That's fair. I'm still not totally on board with your interpretation of events regarding other Rob but I don't fault you for taking what you feel is the necessary action. Frankly, if you are correct in your assessment, I'm surprised this is a new phenomenon for you. You've garnered enough notoriety and respect that I would have imagined there would be a long line of grifters by now. All in all, I hope you don't think I feel ill will towards your stance. I'm just offering an alternative perspective on what was possibly intended.
What about the cut scene where Ulman visits Wendy and Danny in the hospital and states nothing out of the Ordinary happened at the overlook. Apparently that scene was viewed during the first weekend of release but has been cut completely.
One of my PDF articles goes into detail about that, based on the stills and forum reports from ppl who say they saw the original cut. We don't have a lot of info about it. Apparently Ullman wears a big bear like coat (this is in the production still), does a Tony-like finger gesture to Danny and I think throws him a tennis ball. If those reports are true then there's a lot to consider about the scene. Is Ullman Tony in that instance? Has he deliberately had Jack and Halloran's death covered up? Hard to draw conclusion.
THE HOTEL CORRECTS ITSELF
It is a sentient being
I think the Wendy Theroy is a clever A.I experiment.
If there weren't all the "continuity errors" then the theory would fall apart?... but.. there ARE "continuity errors", so..
I think you misnamed this video. As others have stated, you didn't debunk the Wendy Theory. You stated that whoever made the Wendy Theory video is wrong. Your only points were that Kubrick had never had a female abuser before, and there were a lot of continuity errors in the movie. Still not sure why you felt compelled to have to respond.
I think it’s because he’s the type of guy who likes to feel that he is the only one in the know, if anybody challenges him or his authority, he feels very insecure and has to tell everyone that he is the only one who is allowed to teach the truth
I don't think that anyone really thought that this was your work.
There is no competition, Rob mate your channel is the best out there, I'd say objectively so too.
Agree completely!
He's definitely the best around. Nobody has ever come close 🎥🎞
@@moviearchaeologist9655 Agreed mate!
What’s his explanation for the continuity errors? Just mistakes?
"I did it 4 the lulz"
- Stanley Kubrick, Variety Magazine interview, March 1986
I think Kings reaction to the Wendy character was all wrong. Yes, she cried a lot in a scary situation. But she beat Jack unconscious with a bat, dragged him to the storage room and locked him up. She escaped with Danny and drove off in the Snowcat through the Wilderness.. She was the hero of the film.
ok.. I mean calm down dude, how about just the meat and potatoes of the theory?
So who exactly did you debunk..? The person that came up with this theory?
The Wendy theory is the best theory aside from your own reading of Danny's abuse. But the Wendy theory fills in a lot more gaps and both can comfortably coincide. I must mention you took about 13 minutes to get to the point, then brushed it off in broad strokes. I think it warrants more thought.
How though?
13 min to the point-that’s what I said too
You were the RUclipsr Pioneer of Movie Theories and Analyze on RUclips.
NOW EVERY RUclipsR IS DOING IT
I know I sound like a fan boy, but I think credit where it's due is essential on platforms like youtube. Rob and a few other channels, all with slightly different focuses, set the trend off and by around 2013, loads of other film channels began to spring up. There are one or two other well researched and well intended channels out there now though. I enjoy Cinema Tyler for example as the guy delves deep into the actual productions around movies. He has a great series of vids on aspects around the making of Apocalypse Now for example.
Man that thumbnail creeped me out 😅 I agree about Room 237, really enjoyed the movie and the presentation and it got me thinking about some interesting interpretations, but I found myself being really skeptical about the interpretations, especially the moon landing theory.
It reminds me of the beyond the 80s horror
There are, generally, no continuity “errors” in a Kubrick movie. The visual ambiguity is disorienting and makes the audience question what they are seeing. The theories, whether hallucination vs. ghost story vs. any other perspective, is a reflection of the viewer. Kubrick’s movies tend to be about the complexity and mystery of human nature, as shown by human behavior and relationships. The Wendy theory is plausible. You can make sense of the movie from the perspective of Wendy’s supposed “mental illness” as much as Jack the unhinged psychopath theory, or most other theories. The moon landing bit is also a potential clue. That theory has been around since 2001 (the movie) which came out around the same time as the moon landing. It was so “realistic” in many people’s minds that a fake moon landing seems possible. Kubrick could easily be playing with the audience putting that sweater on Danny. It’s a work of art, a puzzle, a joke, but most of all, it’s a reflection of the audience.
It came out the year before the moon landing. Which is why that conspiracy theory exists. If it came out the year after everyone would shrug and say "these movie visuals have gotten really good"
I actually watched a video where they showed continuity errors from other kubrick movies, and there are quite a few...
Sorry, I like your videos but I have to disagree with you. I think the Wendy theory still holds up; in fact that’s one thing that makes this movie so awesome. There are 1 million ways to interpret it, and they may all be plausible.
Firstly, we still have an abuser, except it’s the one we did not expect. That still fits with Kubrick’s other movies.
Secondly, the video tells us which scenes are real and not hallucination due to continuity errors, such as the paper still being in the typewriter and Jack looking more disturbed and worried than angry. The video says that she has schizophrenia, which could result in this delusion. I just think it’s another way of looking at the movie, where Wendy herself is the unreliable narrative.
This would make the continuity errors make way more sense than just being Kubrick‘s attempt to just orient us
You come across rather petty. Like you think you are The Shining guy and all the other YT channels and projects aren't worthy. And this video is basically clickbait, since you didn't debunk anything. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is debunked. The Wendy Theory is well done and very interesting. Don't be so jelly.
The only thing that caught my eye in the "Wendy theory" is the TV they watch before Danny going for the fire engine - the TV is not plugged in anywhere and it feels like she may be staring in the blank TV...? Any thoughts on this or continuity "error"? Thank you! Appreciate you work so much, Rob
Yeah, I was thinking about this one also. Really interesting. I hope Rob could answer this one, because that was the thing, that really stuck in my mind.
That's been noticed and talked about by others. I think it was in Room 237 film as well. I haven't reached any particular conclusion on it personally.
That's always stuck with me too
It could have something to do with all the cartoony stuff in The Shining. Like literal Disney and Peanut cartoons, Jack acting like the big bad wolg. Idk like Wendy's life became as absurd asa cartoon. Fiction metaphorically being relived becoming a surreal nightmare (Jacks writing on serial killers happened to them IRL too).
The tv was unplugged cause her life is as fucked up as fiction instead.
Just spitballing.
@@couchpotato3197 That's something Kubrick said - he didn't like Disney cartoons, he thought they gave kids nightmares. However, I always thought the Roadrunner cartoon had something to do with Danny coming up with idea of trapping Jack in the maze and walking backwards to escape.
i admire your integrity. there one other video debunking the wendy theory that is very good and mentions you. that's how i found you. edit: the other debunking video is by a channel called eyebrow cinema
I remember watching the video on this theory months ago, and thinking it was both pretty ridiculous and existing solely to be contrarian/different from other theories. In addition to that, Wendy having one big hallucination wouldn’t match up with any of the overarching themes that Kubrick establishes in the film. Did Wendy hallucinate Danny telepathically connecting with Hallorann? Did she hallucinate Danny’s interactions with the Grady twins when she was cooking lunch at the other end of the hotel?
It is not one big hallucination, and there are some separate parts that mix reality with hallucination in a way that makes sense with the mismatching details. The theory perfectly covers the Hallorann issue, in great detail.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 how, exactly?
The hallucinations theory imo is spot on, even down to her screams, it was more than an external fear enveloping her, those screams seemed heavily traumatic with acute mania.
Yeah, I watched it and thought it was a stupid theory - existing just to try and find some new clickbaity angle, contrarian like you say! Perfectly put.
Contrarian is a good word for it, I wanted to say obtuse, but that is perhaps too strong. People side with silly notions like this one out of some misguided sense of individuality. As if by disagreeing with someone like Rob, who has studied the film and written about it for over a decade, they are striking out against 'sheeple' like ourselves who constantly refer to Rob's work. That's nonsense of course and the phrase throwing out the baby with the bathwater comes to mind. As far as I can can make out, no one other that Rob has anything useful to say about the themes of the film on youtube.
7:24 Anyone is allowed to cite your work without reaching out to you. Whether its cited as inspiration, or they want to debunk your video as you've done many times to others (including this video), or any other reason to cite your work. They don't need to contact you for this.
As far as I remember (I can watch it again if I'm wrong), but they only mention you VERY briefly at the start of their video, they make it extremely apparent that they are only referring to your video because of the chair moving and being inconsistent in the "Jack yells at Wendy" scene, and that's it.
I love your work Rob, but you're overreacting to this person when you claim that they try to associate themself with you as if it is a continuation of your work.
Furthermore, as I said, no one has to contact you at all for anything unless they flat out want/need your permission due to copyright infringement or the like, which is also very clearly not the case in that video. If it was the case, or you honestly felt as though it was, then what are you doing in this video? Hopefully you contacted them first, right?
Your other points are fine, but this part of the video comes off as you letting your ego get the better of you.
As I said in the video, what prompted me to do this debunk was the manner of citation giving some people the impression that not only I approved of, collaborated on or endorsed the content, but even leading some to believe I covertly made the video. Even if it was an accidental impression it's still one for me to set the record straight on. Wanting to be clear about what content is and isn't mine isn't an ego issue. Also the creator doesn't provide contact details :)
I agree that people don't need permission to cite his work, and I doubt the original poster is trying to associate themselves with Rob. Although, they likely put his name in the description to show up under search results. And I don't think it's his ego getting the better of him. If people have continually linked the Wendy Theory to Rob, he would want to set the record straight because it doesn't align with his previous articles and videos.
@@robag555 Touche Robert!!!
@@robag555 I agree with you that you must maintain your integrity and if anyone (even mistakenly) believes you have input into their work, it is imperative that you clear it up. I don't think you overreacted. I watched the video a while ago and disagreed with the analysis, as my right to do so, but I did take notice that you were mentioned as I watch your channel regularly. My only point of contention is that Stanley Kubrick never does anything unintentional. Any inconsistencies are done on purpose even if it's only in his own mind, there is a reason for it. I look forward to your next analysis.
haha didn't see his response before mine. We basically stated the same thing
So, the wendy theory got me thinking that the shining was 3 movies. Which one you're watching is based on who you watch as the protagonist. If it's Danny, a ghost story. If Jack, a nightmare about his life issues. And if wendy, about a paranoid schizophrenic experience. It's just a theory of course.
I like this theory
Very plausible
Or a 4th movie where all the stories are "Real". Lets watch it one more time. Cheers!
@@vonzox cheers!
Which is very Shakespearian
Just watching all this stuff - Kubrick was under no obligation to "figure out' King's book. Kubrick make *his* movie, and I believe that "Wendy theory" explains Kubrick's movie.
Why, in spite of the counter evidence, I still think the "Wendy theory" video adds an interesting layer to my appreciation and interpretation of the movie: it reveals to me nuances in the portrayal of Jack Nicholson's character and Wendy. It really DOES seem as if Nicholson is sometimes playing a normal , non-pathological version of the character and sometimes he plays an exagarated pathological cartoonish version (and the "switching" occurs throughout the movie), plus the possibility of Wendy's pathology had not occurred to me before, yet it seems kind of obvious on rewatching the film.
Yes he does seem normal at times. That's where the multiple Jack's spanning several generations interpretation starts providing answers. Normal Jack (the present) is writing about the history of the hotel, which features past generation Jack going on a rampage. See the article chapter I linked in the video description. It contains solid evidence pointing to that interpretation and it runs into far less conflict with other evidence :)
@@robag555 I'll check it out!
@@robag555 why is there a bloody hand print on the woman's ass that makes Grady spill the drinks on Jack
i really hate the sometimes he's normal defense, because isn't that just how people in real life are??? no one is a horrible child abuser 24/7, like joan crawford had tons of friends and collegues who vouched for her and defended her against her daughters allegations and talked about how professional she was on set etc etc... people are nuanced and inconcistent it doesnt mean their victims are delusional.
@@sophieschmaltz4206 how would you act if you were accused of child abuse or child molestation, and it wasn't true? What if that person was your wife, and at one time you loved her near unconditionally, but perhaps your faith (however marginal) would see you through that marriage for better or worse? Do you think you'd be of sound mind? How would if affect your career? Your interactions with others?
Do you have much experience with people having mental illnesses or dementia?
The ‘Wendy Theory’ seemed such obvious nonsense to me, not least because it’s an extremely glib idea that I can’t imagine Kubrick would have even really considered. One of the things I love about the Shining is how it provokes thought while also being extremely disorienting - but a theory like this is not far from ‘it was all a dream’.
Setting the context of Kubrick’s recurrent themes is really important here. It would have been a real aberration in his work to have a single film that doesn’t return to themes of manipulation and abuse by men.
Please expand on the points made at 19 minutes. Long said most of the movie is simply an adaptation of the novel Jack is writing in the hotel, a story inspired by the tale Grady relates in the interview. Look at the lightbulb go off in Jack's head as he hears the story for the first time. Also, very key to this theory is the burning cigarette in the ashtray. Jack does not smoke in the entire film, but the cigarette indicates the fictionalized version of Jack in the story he's writing. The purple jacket is also very telling.
Why is the purple jacket very telling and what does it tell?
I don’t agree with people having to reveal their identity in public for their arguments to be taken seriously, or even been accepted well. It shouldn’t matter who said something when considering if it might be true, or even just interesting or compelling.
What if the events are occuring in the mind of all 3; Wendy, Danny and Jack. The story is about 3 people going insane in the hotel, right? They all imagined it, and it was different for all 3. That's why the story and hotel keeps changing based on the perspective of the character.
This includes the audience, director, and film, if you wish to interpret deeper.
Or as my wife said... what if all 3 characters are one person. That's because the hotel don't want another family man going insane.
I find it fascinating that Stanley Kubrick made his cast watch Eraserhead and the Shining is like a David Lynch movie.
I'm thinking the Shining is a Polymorphic Movie and the beauty of the movie is all the crazy Theories are possible.
Definitely a lamen's convoluted puzzle, to be sure
At no point did you debunk this theory, it was more of a self boost and discard of the theory. Personally not fully convinced on the theory myself, however I do find it super interesting. I try to keep an open mind and try not to write off any theories I see and find interesting. I don't really see anyone as the god of the shining theories either, it's for anyone.
Rob, I've been a fan since 2011. One scene which I've puzzled over since I first watched The Shining was towards the end , just before Wendy sees the man in the bear costume, as she's climbing the stairs, you can hear a chorus of voices. Has anyone been able to make out what they were saying?
Hey! Toward the end of the film, Kubrick begins to overlay pieces of music. Now, most of the music used in the film is pre-existing art music, that is, it was not composed or recorded for the film. The two pieces being played when Wendy climbs the steps and sees the man in the dog costume (I’ll always say it’s a dog costume, per the source novel) are both by composer Krzysztof Penderecki. One is titled “Polymorphia” and the other is “Jutrznia.” The latter is a choral piece, and has a religious liturgical text from the Christian gospels. You could look up the text to determine the meaning. However, my guess is just that Kubrick thought it sounded cool. He was right!
@@s.s.4820 Thanks! I didn't know that. I'll definitely look at that music. Very interesting. It's an odd choice to use music which has choral voices in that scene because it seemed to me that they broke the fourth wall as Wendy seemed to hear them
You’re right. It does seem like she’s hearing the voices. I suppose that could just be the way it seems, since she’s acting very frightened. But I’d lean toward your impression that she seems to hear something as well. And that is an interesting approach. One more fascinating thing about the film I guess!
I believe the voices are saying ‘Rob Navarro is garbage’ but I’m not 100% on that
I’ve always thought the choral voices from the musical piece were chosen because they sound like ghosts chanting. Like they’re witnessing the possession of Jack and his murderous plan coming to be and they’re cheering him on. The hotel seems to come more alive with evil as the evil progresses. War works in this way as more and more people give in to demons.
Who work in particular was it that turned you off appearing in room 237?
The moon guy mainly, but Some of the others I disagreed with too.
Is this a joke? Im 14 minutes in and this guy hasnt said a thing.
Then keep watching
@10:29 it appears he might start discussing the theory.
did anybody bother to ask Stanley what this movie is really about when he was still alive?
Yes, and he replied
"About two hours"
And then a rimshot sound came out of nowhere
What about this video debunked the Wendy Theory???
11 minutes into the 24 minute video the guy actually starts talking about the subject at hand lol
I saw one video on the Wendy theory (can’t say if the original one), with most of the argument being “Kubrick never makes continuity mistakes. If there is one, it is a clue it is a hallucination.” Some commenters say the errors may be deliberate, BUT to create unease because at some level your brain noticed a chair was there/then wasn’t, but the idea that Kubrick was too much of a perfectionist to have errors isn’t correct. His other moves like Eyes Wide Shut have them too, and I think small ones are inevitable in movies.
When are you going to actually debunk this Wendy Theory?
Sorry about the long preamble. The proper debunk starts about 10 mins in.
@@robag555 I watched the whole thing. I was eagerly awaiting for you to get proper stuck into the detail of the theory but was very disappointed as your work is usually comprehensive and masterful.
I actually think the Wendy theory is absolutely brilliant but I am not an expert by any means. Is there any chance you can do a more in depth debunking video please?
This isn't debunking at all. It's more of a disagreement. No need to have a clickbait title when trying to offer your perspective on things.
This Wendy vid popped onto my "recommended" page a few months ago. I have to wonder if they really got inspiration from you, or if they cited you so the you tube algorithm would key word search for your subscribers, and people searching specifically for YOUR vids, and they could piggy back off you a bit. The Wendy theory is certainly interesting. Weird and flawed. But interesting.
The Wendy theory still holds up for me and explains many events in the film that can't be explained in any other way other than 'supernatural' events. It seems to me many sequences within the film like Jack in the Golden Room are accepted as hallucinations in Jacks mind, but Wendy can't possibly be having any hallucinations, it's totally out of the question. The problem people have with the Wendy theory and most probably why you have responded to it by making a 25 minute video is that you feel like you've been hoodwinked by Kubrick as most of the film is a Wendy hallucination, which is I think what Kubrick wanted.
If Kubrick had faked a moon landing, the cinematography would have been better.
Haha, not heard that one before. Very good.
That's funny...
The sweater and carpet etc were NOT showing the Moon landing because the director was feeling guilty or some such nonsense, they were signifying the greatest achievement humankind had achieved thus far. Kubrick's The Shining is ultimately about power acquisition, not ghosts or women hitting their husbands with baseball bats. The Wendy theory is incredibly awful, but it's no worse than the other ones around.
It's a deep movie. Believing Jack is a psycho would be too obvious. The "Wendy Theory" is highly plausible and entertaining.
Watch this turn out to be an ARG when we find out Rob was Rob the whole time.
I agree with him but the debunking doesn’t start until 10:30. Kind of annoying
Rob what do you make of the man sized toad in the picture at the end? A demon?
Why doesn’t anyone ask stephen king? And also why 11 minutes until he said anything that had to do with the title of his video?
Rob, I don't know if you've ever come across this info, but after checking a website for more obscure stuff about this film, I found something I hadn't seen before. It talks about the epilogue that Kubrick had left out of the theatrical release; this is the entire entry:
It’s not uncommon for a film’s ending to change in post-production, but Kubrick changed the ending of the film after it had been playing in theaters for a weekend. The film version is lost, but pages from the screenplay do exist. The scene takes place after Jack dies in the snow. Ullman visits Wendy in the hospital. He tells her, “About the things you saw at the hotel. [A lieutenant] told me they’ve really gone over the place with a fine tooth comb and they didn’t find the slightest evidence of anything at all out of the ordinary.” He also encourages Wendy and Danny to stay with him for a while. The film ends with text over black, “The Overlook Hotel would survive this tragedy, as it had so many others. It is still open each year from May 20th to September 20th. It is closed for the winter.”
Roger Ebert deemed the cut a good decision. According to him, “Kubrick was wise to remove that epilogue ... it pulled one rug too many out from under the story.”
Would you say that Ullman is perhaps trying to cover up what his crew did find, or does this idea lend some credence to what Navarro is talking about?
That would mean they did not find Hallorann's body, or the door broken through with an axe, the most iconic image of the entire film... If this is really true, do you realize it means the Wendy theory is almost beyond doubt confirmed? I knew it was correct from the subliminal image of Wendy going into the "haunted" room, and the huge bags of salt on the cold room's floor, the snowcat position etc (and also the rolled eyes of Jack, suggesting a knock out), but this, if true, would be genuinely amazing.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 So then Ullman knew at that moment, Wendy murdered Jack, and therefore he (Ullman) immediately invited her (and Danny) to stay with him for a while.... so she could murder him too.
@@spillanegottleib1681 In Ullman's view there was no murder: Jack in a fit of madness went outside and froze to death. He makes it clear that other than Jack's death nothing out of the ordinary was found (except maybe the typed paper, if that). I should amend here that the the subluminal image I described (room 234 door blending to Wendy) is only an odd gradual transition cut, not an actual inserted image. But most other cuts are sharp, so it is still kind of odd, but less clear cut and not the definition of a subluminal image.
Most of these are bad faith arguments.
Assuming "we" means the author meant you and himself? And not just "we" as in, the audience?
And then the utterly disgusting attempt at attacking the character of the author "well, I don't know any Rob Navaro that could have made this video" - I'm sorry, who made you the authority on verifying people on the internet?
I'm 10 minutes into the video, and not ONE legitimate point was discussed.
Mr. Ager you…are the best RUclips source for theories regarding The Shining. You have always been…the best RUclips source for theories regarding The Shining. I should know… I’ve always been subscribed.
Hey Jeevesy old boy.
You seem to be worried that people watching the Wendy Theory will think it is made by you. When I watched the video I did not think that at all. It was concise whereas your videos take a more meandering train of thought approach. Most comments on it seem to be general discussion and not people saying "Hey is this made by Rob Ager"? He mentions your work at the start as a nice tip of the hat then goes into his observations. Observations you disagree with yet claim are plagiarized.
You claim the Wendy Theory's popularity is due in large part to the click bait title however I have a video titled 'THE SHINING FINALLY EXPLAINED' and that video currently has 36 views.Appropriately so, it was an April Fool's joke.
It is true you don't raise your voice or name call but you come off as passive aggressive to say the least. You said you didn't want to participate in the Room 237 documentary because the other people involved aren't good enough. Even in the links of the pinned comment you posted there's a note " 1.8 million views Despite plagiarizing my work and changing their channel name (formerly known as Screen Prism) after I publicly called them out on it, I haven't even bothered watching this one." That seems like sour grapes, like you're the self appointed expert that can't be bothered with others.
Rob, I asked for your opinion on this theory few months ago, and you noted that you'd exhausted your analyses of the Shining, and you couldn't respond to every other video. I'm thrilled you're going to dispell this silly notion. Thank you!
Cheers, yeah quite a few ppl have asked for a response to that vid.
Wendy: Danny, who did this to you?
Danny: [stares only at her]
Jack: [looks on in horror]
Wendy: [grabs Danny and backs out of the room] [to Jack] You did this, didn't you?
Jack: [looks confused]
This video just makes you sound bitter you didn't think of it, honestly. Sounds really petty. I watched the video you're referencing and never once thought it was attached to you in any way. It uses a robot narrator like a million videos out there. I like your videos but this left a sour taste.
Haha, "uses a robot narrator like a million videos out there". No, there are tons of Shining theory vids on YT. Pretty much all of them, including mine, are made by people who don't hide their identity. It doesn't matter if you personally didn't think the vid was secretly made by me. Others have said so and that alone is enough reason for me to set the record straight - debunking it is a surefire way to do that too. Ask yourself ... why did the vid creator hide their identity, why do they not respond to comments?
@@robag555 you didn't debunk anything. You ranted. The Wendy Theory video had evidence that backed up their theory, and it clicked for me. I hop over here and you're calling this video a "debunking" without addressing ANYTHING from the Wendy video. This video is an embarrassment for you but you keep doubling down. Sharing your VERY COMMON first name and having a robot narrator doesn't discredit their theory. Would have actually enjoyed the content you promised with the title of this video but it appears you're lashing out because of bruised ego. And you're doing nothing to change that perception
What're your thoughts on Twin Peaks explained by Twin Perfect?
I don't understand why there are some many (very) negative comments about the Wendy theory (or any theory).
A movie like this clearly has many layers going on. And many "theories" can exist at the same time.
The Wendy Theory video does make sense on one level. Whether it says "finally explains" or not is no different than fully dismissing it... ;)
Basically what I am saying is the Wendy theory does not "go against" this guy's work... It is not an either/or situation. The Wendy theory can coexist with other theories due to the way the movie was created.
Don't want to be that guy but isn't it a bit hypocritical to claim the original Wendy Theory video used a click-bait title in a video with a click-bait title?
I am so glad you chose not to appear in room 237 that doc gets made fun of so much
Every time I see ager I think of rowdy rowdy piper I don't know why
.... Because you hope Keith David punches him in the face.... ?
I disagree that the author 'should' create a video revealing their 'true identity.' There are good reasons to maintain anonymity that have nothing to do with malice.
Personally speaking, if I were ever to present any kind of material like this online, I'd do it anonymously as well. My reasons would be quite simple. I would want my ideas to stand on their own and not be tainted by superficial judgements people almost always carry with them in regards to the presenter's appearance, charisma or lack there of.
The Wendy theory popped up in my suggestions a bit ago, I watched it, and at NO TIME was I confused or led to believe that the video was a creation of Rob Ager. It was quite evident that the ideas presented were independent, though by somebody who probably admired your work.
But you're not everybody else. Others have assumed and speculated that it was my work. Hence my response :)
@@robag555 who cares who wrote the theory Rob. The more videos and interpretation on such a classic film the better. Each to their own. That's why the docu film is so good. Debunking is just your way to stay in the conversation.
@@robag555 Making the clarification is great, ...but my point was regarding your expectations of the other guy. I hear you though. Frustrating on your end.
@@sgc36 To say it doesn't matter if videos are posted that get wrongly attributed to other uploaders is a very odd thing to say. Correct attribution of source regarding quotes and behaviour is a fundamental basic of our society at the legal and social levels, "Way to stay in the conversation" ... I was already in the Wendy Theory conversation on the basis of mistaken attribution lol.
i see no evidence anyone thought it was your work
I. Me. I. Me. I. Me. I. Me. I. Me.
Who is your favorite person and why is it you?
Citing you made the wendy theory video seem incredibly creditable
This was a frustrating sit through.
On topic of things moving around between shots remind me of the hedge animals from the novel that only move when you aren’t looking them. Maybe this was Kubrick’s transition of just that. Things move when you’re not looking, which in my opinion is more frightening
I like the Wendy theory, just because Wendy, though it seems rather a stretch.
Once in college, an instructor straight out told me my interpretation of something was wrong. I was pretty offended, because an interpretation is a very personal thing, and that felt like she was telling me my height was wrong. I got along with this instructor much better outside of class, and later she explained herself adequately. The Wendy theory sounds like someone did what I did and chose an interpretation, then found things to support it, rather than the other way around.
Well, You can make an interpretation and be totally wrong. Just because is "personal" doesn't mean you're correct.
If I were asked what my favorite movie was, The Shining would immediately come to mind. Just like Kubrick is probably my favorite director. And, I know that must sound strange, not every Kubrick fan puts The Shining as their #1. But for me it's just about its immersion. The tone and pacing just work for me. there is something intoxicating almost about watching it alone in the dead of night when everything is dark and quiet, especially if its cold. I've always been a sort of, "night owl" so watching The Shining alone around 3AM is just something that i can always return to and find gratifying.
And I have looked into various analyses of his films and perhaps my own interpretations are trash, but i definitely do sense a sort of conspiracy element. more blatant with work like Eyes Wide Shut, but i believe there are common themes throughout all of his films and that he picks particular stories or source material that he can make his own or insert his own interpretation, experiences and beliefs into.
I have to mention before I forget how frustrating it is, the amount of continuity "errors" in The Shining. as if it had to have been deliberate, but, that begs the question as to why? simply to create an effect of uneasiness? just like his framing, symmetry and geometry. perhaps he wanted to mess with the subconscious mind. playing tricks on the viewer simply to create a feeling or tone. like something is off but you don't know exactly what it is, you more so sense it.
I have to say my interpretations or theories may be a little more, "tin foil" and thats not to discredit him as an artist. He was truly a brilliant and talented storyteller and visionary. but, i think you can't exactly get where he did just on raw abilities. He was in some fraternity or another and found himself in the service of.. lets say, powerful, influential, rich, elite types.. they hired him and threw money at him because of how masterful he was at his craft. and i have to mention that Stephen King probably belongs to this same fraternity. and that both his original book and Kubrick's version of the story are still about the same things and it has everything to do with the ill effects of rituals and "mind control". Its also important to look into the other material that Stephen King published regarding this story, the continuation of the story when Danny grows up and faces off against a sort of Satanic cult that for a lack of better comparison, ritually murders children to sort of consume their "souls", and they more they suffer as they die the sweeter or stronger it is. and it really brings to mind theories of adrenachrome. and if you want to analyze movies, check out Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and From Hell ask yourself if Satanists really are dominating Hollywood. there is a pattern, actors playing similar roles that go beyond typecasting. like movies seemingly unrelated are actually tied in meaning or referencing the same things. And in The Shining its all about abuse and the effects on the mind. i think the Schizophrenia theory holds water or makes sense to a degree, for sure. especially considering the Apollo references, as if Kubrick was suggesting those theories were delusion, or even the idea itself that we went was a widely believed delusion. But, I'm more concerned, and about not the themes of alcoholism, but what trauma does to the brain and mind and how people dissociate or develop sort of alternate personalities. there is that moment of shock and horror that overcomes every single character. even Hollaran, not just Danny and his mother and father. they all have that wide eyed, deer in headlights look. thats when people are petrified with fear, as if they just shit themselves. thats when the brain is so overloaded that it splits and people escape or dissociate behind amnesia walls.
From Danny's abuse he developed Tony, who takes over when Danny needs to escape the harsh reality of his abuse. and this sort of thing is generational, even the trait of being easily disassociated or hypnotized. people are born into these secret societies and cults. So its safe to assume that Danny's parents also suffered similarly when they were younger. Like the parents can have alternate personalities that take over and are the ones that do the abuse and create alters and perform the programming within their own children. Stephen King has similar themes in his other stories, especially IT.. the idea of fear, that causes the trauma and dissociation. The town and the adults almost seemed in on the whole thing, like they overlooked the disappearing children who ended up consumed.. i think the supernatural is used as a cover or is part of these characters delusions, again being the effects of trauma from ritual abuse. its deeper than mere alcoholism.. this is about the occult, i think. and the dark side of it.
Not sure how else to explain it or break it down for a succinct conclusion. Danny was abused, emotionally, physically, psychologically and i dare say sexually. might be more obvious in the TV miniseries that was more true to the source material. For example, it keeps returning to his father, "transforming" into a Werewolf when he puts on a mask. yet again a reference to disassociation or an alternate personality. which was missing entirely in the film. But, to me its as if Danny was brought to that isolated hotel for his programming and was scared shitless in order to split his mind and program him. as if the ones that hurt you the most are the ones you love and trust the most. its as if both of his parents were in on it, and nobody is coming to help him except Hollaran who may be part of it. the ones tormenting Danny are his own parents and they don't even realize it. They seem to have their own handlers as well. and the scary thing is i honestly don't think i'm reading too far into things or being paranoid with my interpretation. I am under the impression that just like with ghosts, aliens, clowns, vampires, werewolves, clowns.. its all a coverup for the abuse people are doing to each other. say if someone claims to have been abducted by aliens, thats how they remember the trauma.. and thats how we see these stories, through the characters perception or eyes. and thats what they were convinced to believe, about being probed or whatever, well people are less likely to believe them if they think they're crazy. as compared to saying, men came into my room and forced themselves on me. the mind copes by believing it was ghosts or aliens and it covers the tracks of the abusers who whispered those lies into their ears before leaving. the mind has weird defense mechanisms and it can retreat or hide behind amnesia walls. we see Danny go through this throughout the film when he speaks to Tony. we even have the crucial scene in the beginning when Danny's mother is speaking with his doctor and she specifically asks about the traumatic event and Tony. And les not forget Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.. just like Stephen King has several themes he goes back to and works into new stories, i think Kubrick's style involved particular and related themes as well. and for the record there is something strange about the Apollo missions, all the photos and videos and interviews with the Astronauts. I wouldn't be shocked if Kubrick was utilized for such a thing and if it ended up being.. lets say.. traumatizing for him.
i wonder if Danny and his parents were truly alone at the hotel or if all the ghosts were other people there. they were all "hallucinating" or suffering delusions or dreams and false memories. perhaps Jack went crazy with an axe out of defense of his family but it was turned around and made to seem like he killed them, when the true story.. some creeps were hiding in the hotel, lured this family there and .. had their way with them and then turned it all into a ghost story.
There is no reason furniture and objects would be removed from a scene accidentally.
Absolutely NOTHING was debunked. Just because you use the word 'debunked' doesn't make it so. I watched the Wendy Theory vid and the author made a compelling argument where he professionally and intelligently made his points then presented the evidence. The evidence was consistent throughout his arguments as they progressed through the movie. The Rob Navarro vid makes sense based on the 'rules' he outlined on how the Wendy Theory worked. Those same rules applied to all the scenes in which he claimed Wendy was hallucinating. But Rob Ager makes a vid and just tells us how wrong Navarro is without presenting evidence or even tackling the substance of the Wendy Theory argument. Even Rob's in-depth analysis didn't present evidence as compelling as Navarro. Rob's vid is more of him talking about himself and expecting the viewer to just accept everything he says as he using the word 'debunked'. Personally, if you want me to agree with your argument, you had better present a logical argument with evidence. Rob makes a weird comparison between Jack and Danny as the old hag but that requires a lot of imagination with no evidence, at least, Navarro makes sense in his arguments.
In Rob's text, he argues that a lot of the scenes are dream scenes. He states 'Remember also that Danny’s very first psychic episode in the film resulted in him being found unconscious “I remember mommy saying ‘wake up Danny, wake up’.” I disagree, it makes more sense that Danny was only saying what he thought his mother and the doctor wanted to hear and it had the extra benefit of being true. Danny wasn't in a dream, he seemed to be playing at the mirror and didn't seem to be as upset as his mother. I don't know what the truth is, that would be the director's call to explain. I only know that Navarro makes a better argument. Before you decide, watch both and tell me which one makes a better argument....or don't.