can u explain what the blood is obviously running over for like 3 seconds, its a giant lump and can not be the lump because it clearly runs on top and over "it" whether its a dead body or not, well, only Kubrick will know, seeing how this was not in the book.
@poopstain742 *sigh* There is no lump. The crushed depth & contorted reflections may make it appear to resemble one. Like how an inferior mirage may resemble distant water, or how the Moon may seem larger on the horizon, or how bugs photographed with a long shutter may look like tiny, interdimensional "rods", or how a Rorschach inkblot may look like a rabbit... thats not what it actually is. A bit of natural physics explains it. Or you can keep believing the voices in your head.
Am I missing something here...was anyone claiming the scene was real or something? I don't get the reason why you would have to prove something like this. I mean its common knowledge that everything you see in movies is fabricated.
@IndieDaily Reality is disappointing so people concoct meaning and mystery where they can. An undetermined light in the nite sky is automatically aliens, a flying insect motion blurred in camera is an interdimensional 'rod', a strange sound in the night or a spec of dust floating close to lens out of focus must be a ghost, and a distorted reflection is a movie child's inner voice literally flopping out of the elevator as a naked dead body that no one else sees but one film anal-yzer.
in the movie, in the bar room scene, it shows jack drinking jack daniel's whiskey. hmmmm. jack was drinking jack daniels. i don't recall whether the original novel showed jack drinking jack daniel's whiskey, but i do recall that the original novel said that the real name of jack was john daniel torrance. thus, we have jack daniel drinking jack daniel's whiskey.
@olaniyi570 I dont necessarily trust CGI to prove or disprove anything. In this case, reflections just make complete sense if you study lighting a bit.
This is what I always thought! LOL It's tempting to believe that Stanley put something into this disturbing and amazing sequence, but I don't think he did. He leaves the sequence unadulterated and standing on its own for the viewer to decide what it means (without any added "mysteries").
@ninmachine109 Fake AND gay. No the filmmakers shot at the Timberline Lodge in Oregon which has an actual haunted elevator that spews real human blood every hour.
@WeLWets Kubrick used the real lodge only for front exteriors. All interiors were shot on a set. The funny thing is, EVERY building is haunted according to employees who work late in them. :)
@Xurgonic Oddly enough, I worked the night shift in a psychiatric hospital for about 8 years and never heard or saw anything that I'd classify as paranormal. I was doing double duty as both security guard (walking around alone at night throughout the entire building) and tech work on the numerous lockdown units. I'm open to the possibility of paranormal activity, though I don't assume it's there and don't seek it out. Never had any issues with ghosts. Some co-workers however...
Okay I get it, the things that appear as fleshy objects are actually reflections, but did you really need to go out of your way to spend time on explaining such a trivial thing? That's like me making a documentary on how you shouldn't cook board game pieces and eat them. Sure I might bring up some interesting facts, but it's overall trivial I would have wasted my time making it.
@10lettername The cg was not done just for the explanation. I only spent a few hours doing this part. Ager & I are film fans & we work in movies so its not trivial to us. Ager's comments r filled with people intrigued by the subject while some could care less. The equivalent would be u making a brief doc explaining an interest u might be passionate about. I see many guys post gameplay of themselves playing some stupid videogame & I think 'who cares,' but thats what they're into.
Kubrick also liked to play mind games with people when approached by the media. Kubrick was infamous for throwing in little hidden cues in his movies and reshooting a scene over and over hundreds of times to get it just right. It could very well be a trick of the blood splattering or a prop. Either way I think Kubrick intended it to look like that to get people to think that. That scene alone I believe was reshot the most in the entire movie.
@Nagneto Yes I know all about Kubrick. But there is no prop or anything else hidden in the blood. All the 'shapes' are accounted for by reflections of the set.
My only issue is in the real footage, the blood seems to splash and bounce off the "object", and it seems to redirect the flow around it before it is completely swallowed by the flow.
@superdemon There is no redirection. Part of the confusion is due to how it was shot with a long lens which greatly compresses apparent depth. The conical shape extends toward camera a greater distance than it seems (view my final render), and the liquid naturally accumulates at the floor to form an elongated shape that SEEMS like a shorter 'bulge' due to the long lens. Then the reflections create an optical illusion as if the the liquid is shaped unusually.
I say two things, one, in your image with the body, that's not how I think the body came out, more like it is half in the elevator, half out, but your explanation is also reasonable. Now, think about this, what if it is supposed to look like a body, kubrick did all that just so he could have some creepy looking item in the water, that may or may not resemble a possibly desecated corpse.
@ZombieShooter123 I've studied this more than anyone. Dead, nude Tony in the blood is TOO literal for Kubrick. Why dead? Why nude? No one ever thought anything was in the blood before Ager. My body render shows what he sees, which no one else sees. Once he pointed out an odd shape, everyone started seeing something different. If no one sees the same thing, that means its nothing, like an inkblot, its in your imagination. Every detail in the blood is accounted for by reflections.
@Xurgonic I know, I was merely pointing out that when I think dead body coming out of and elevator, I think that it fell face first, so tony was stuck half in and half out. ANd, I never thought it might be tony coming out of the elevator, I thought it might be some representation of what was at the hotel, literally a bloodbath waiting to happen.
@noangel931 Check the 'further explanation' link in the description. That is how Ager sees a body as he outlined in an image he sent to me. I have yet to read anyone of anyone else seeing the same thing. Each person projects something different- like what a cloud is shaped like.
@Xurgonic I only recently started watching Ager's videos. His interpretations seem bizarre. Pareidolia run rampant, or otherwise an inability to understand how film continuity works--i.e. if the screed fades to black at the intermission, you're seeing the monolith. Bizarre.
how many man hours did this video take you, by the way?
Great work Xurgonic!!! Its quite nice what you have done. Now, did you take account that the blood seems to be "over" the "object" and it flows "in between"? What do you think? Cool work though! :D
@bizarroman69 Am not sure what you mean. Some interpret the curved reflections to mean the liquid is flowing over an object but the bell shaped curve is natural. There's a bit of bulge at the base of the pour that naturally occurs as liquid accumulates, & the pour extends forward toward camera a greater distance than is initially perceived (view overhead render) with a long lens, thus it appears compressed into a smaller lump. I dont know what you mean by 'inbetween.'
I'm not sure I'm convinced with your explanation because when the red "fleshy" object is clearly seen on the floor, the rest of the blood pours out and basically covers it up- but not completely. In fact, I can see clearly how the blood splashes out from the top of the "fleshy" object, but the object can still be seen. If it was just a reflection, don't you think the object would no longer have been seen? After the rest of the blood pours out, the "reflection" or "fleshy" object would no longer
@SexiTRfan Why would a reflection ever be covered up? It would always appear 'on top' as long as the surface is somewhat smooth and in view. Look at the 'body' link in my description. THAT's precisely what Ager described that he sees in an outline he sent- head, torso & reaching arm, which NO ONE else sees. Reflections bulge & distort in the rounded shape of the pour & yur brain projects something INside the blood when it's not. All 'objects' match features of the reflected elevator.
@Xurgonic But that's the thing, blood pours out from the top of the 'reflection' and that specific part is not the same as it was before the rest of the blood poured out. The bottom part of the 'reflection' still remains visible-and that's impossible. If anything, it may not be a "fleshy" object at all, maybe just a bag of congealed blood, as other people believe. Yet it is a solid object nonetheless. It would be impossible for a mere reflection to distort itself the way it is distorted here.
@SexiTRfan ? Not clear what u refer, but the RED object is reflection of the RED door, visible from aft initial splash clears to when the wall splash covers. The open door reflects, as does the blood itself. Ager's torso & arm are explained away, but some still insist on some blob lurking although there's no point to it. No reason for glaring 'congealed blood' bag error to occur aft meticulous, multiple takes. Similar reflections appear in CG recreation so is not 'impossible.'
@Xurgonic This is what I see: When the blood starts pouring out, a metallic, coppery gold, object lands on the floor. It has two hollow rectangle shapes in the middle (you interpret this as reflections of the doors). And when the rest of the blood starts pouring out, it splashes out from the top of this metallic object, but this object can still be seen a few seconds after even more blood pours out. Your explanation is very logical, but when I see it like that.... I wonder...?
@SexiTRfan I see nothing evenly remotely resembling what you describe. U r the only one seeing a gold thing with hollow rectangles. The issue began with Ager imagining a body holding a cable. Another sees a bike, axe, or any one of infinite objects or characters, thus indicating imaginary Rorschach, 'UFO' assumptions about something that's just not objectively understood. Like a magic trick, there's a simple explanation that isn't apparent at first, & requires a bit of understanding of physics.
@Xurgonic Lol, you know what, don't work yourself out trying to explain this to me. I see your explanation of it and it sounds very logical. What I see may sound very strange, but that's literally what I see and I may be seeing it wrong, but I am still sure it is a solid object- whatever it may be. Thank you for your explanations, I really appreciate them. It also sounds logical that it could be a body...who knows.... but again, thanks.
@SexiTRfan Am 1000% certain there's nothing in the blood but the viewer's imagination. Incidence reflection in an odd shape may seem as something else(like a mirage) but flattened depth & slomo distort perception, & few understand light physics. The pour is shaped different & moves at higher velocity than seems. In HD, u can even make out the dial reflected in the blood exactly aligned with all the other elevators features described. A dead 'Tony' is too literal & nonsensical for Kubrick.
@Xurgonic But isn't it also explained in a document that during the shooting of this film, Kubrick took a lot of time filming this particular scene with the blood? He shot it countless times until he was sure the blood scene looked 'perfect'. Don't you think he would have noticed this? Maybe if it was just a reflection, he couldn't have been bothered to fix it, but I don't know. Hey, you might be right. I've watched The Shining many many times and I only noticed this until recently after years.
@SexiTRfan The number of Kubrick's takes are often exaggerated. There were 3 takes of this scene. There's no reason to 'fix' reflections that would naturally occur. Kubrick used the light as it naturally occurred on a realistic set, without special stage lighting. It would be impossible for these reflections to NOT show up as they do. Rob Ager has just made a big deal out of nothing here, as he spends his time speculating. Fans often dig meaning from films that was never consciously intended.
@Xurgonic Right, I see what you mean. But just look at the scene a few more times. When I see that object appear, the rest of the blood pouring out splashes from the top and the sides of the supposed object, but it doesn't cover it up. The whole scene is filling up with blood, blood splashing from all sides, but I can still see the object. This does not justify it as a reflection because the top of the 'reflection' distorts, but not the bottom...[continued]...
@SexiTRfan Seriously, look closely. At the very top of the object, blood starts splashing out. Before the whole scene is over, I can still see this object. When the rest of the blood is out, a reflection would no longer be visible because the bottom of the floor is covered in blood. Put it like this: a heavy object is put on the grass outside. Put a hose behind it and release a strong current of water out and you see how water would splash from all around the object, but doesn't cover it up...
@SexiTRfan I've literally studied this scene more than anyone on the planet. Yur mind insists on interpreting an object. Liquid naturally bulges at the base of the pour which u see as if pouring over something. In the same spot, the rectangular doors & walls are reflected (the rectangles u see). The reflection is also correctly non-inverted. If the dial is seen, in middle of the white wall, above the red door, within the brown frame, etc, ALL arranged same in reflection, then its a reflection.
@SexiTRfan Dont sound convinced :-) If the 'arm' that Ager insists as part of a 'body' is indeed a curved reflection of the white wall above as I explain, then the dial could also be seen there. 3 angles were used in the film. The 3rd angle, seen from Wendy's POV near end, is the closest angle. Its just a speck on dvd, but you CAN see the dial right where it should be located in reflection. Is clearer in HD. That proves Ager is confused. ALL 'objects' r accounted for as reflections of the set.
@Xurgonic Well, I suppose so. I'll still watch the Shining a few more times to make sure I'm not just focusing too much on unnecessary things. But for the most part, your explanation sounds very accurate. Other reviews I've seen go too far with this and make pretty ridiculous theories on it. Thanks for everything, I appreciate it :D
@SexiTRfan We prefer mystery. I once read Lynch's comment on a critic expounding on the symbolism behind a moment where Henry removes his wet sock in Eraserhead, from the opposite foot he stepped in a puddle with earlier. He said they shot the 2 scenes far apart & it was simply a matter of no one remembering the correct foot. I've heard countless dvd commentaries of filmmakers' amusement at symbolism that critics invent or at least was not consciously intended. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
@Xurgonic Yeah, that's true. And I guess The Shining was an interesting movie to find 'hidden' messages in because it was directed by Kubrick and was based on a Stephen King book. And I understand it does have a few hidden messages here and there, but not to the point where things can sometimes be explained with simple logic.
@SexiTRfan Ager believes Kubrick is without flaw but there r MANY continuity errors in Shining, as ALL movies. Some may be interpreted as intentional but most definitely r not. Google "continuity errors in The Shining"- moviemistakes, & jonnys53.blogspot has pics. Kubrick shot many takes on long schedules as discontinuity was more inevitable. All filmmakers edit for effect & pacing OVER continuity. It isnt THAT important as 99% of viewers wont notice. Its that 1% who slowmo dvds & over anal-yze.
@Xurgonic Well, of course. Even the best cook burns his food sometimes. Nothing in this world is perfect. But hey, thanks for the site, I'll go check it out :D
@SexiTRfan Hahahah, yes. Many of those comments posted on that "continuity errors in The Shining" page are errors that I have noticed as I watched The Shining many times. There are probably a few more that I can come up with myself right now. Seeing as this movie also has its many errors, I can now see how this blood scene may have had its error as well. I guess I wasn't fully informed when I began my argument. Thanks for bearing with me and helping me see things in a different perspective :)
Yes, you are right. But there is another interesting detail: the two pointers above the elevators doors together signify the number 23 (2+3). Kubrick chose the 23.5.1980 as the official release date of his film.
Illuminatus! He saw the Illuminati as the source of the bloodflow; the constant massmurder-sacrifice in the world...
@Tundraboy05 If you look closely, the blood splashes from the corners, not the vents. At smaller scale, liquid seems to splash more aggressively. The blood appears to splash too high off every object, because it is a miniature scale. There are also narrow vertical corners behind the white walls (seen in other angles of the hallway in the film) that channel the liquid upward, as seen in my overhead render. Also, the slowmo & long lens used diminish the apparent velocity of the blood.
@Xurgonic Yes, but I'm talking about the area in front of the narrow vertical corners, where the vents are.
When the blood is halfway down the hallway, you can see the blood appear to be splashing off of the floor, where the vents are, so there might be a connection to the pumps and hoses under them.
@Tundraboy05 No, the blood does not appear to splash from the vents, only further out where the floor meets the walls and furniture. The physics of miniature dimensions account for all the liquid behavior seen here. There was no need for convoluted pumps and hoses. And as the event was shot at high speed, it would be extremely difficult to blend and time the trigger of any secondary jets of liquid. Imagine having to do this while observing the normal 24fps speed.
@MrJkizzle123 Actually not. Check reflection in the flared bell of a horn instrument like a trumpet with the mouth down (similar to shape of blood pour), or look at lower inside of a spoon. The reflection is not inverted as expected in a flat surface reflection. Google 'funhouse mirror' for images- there's one with a red frame on grass that shows legs reflected both up & down depending on the surface curve direction. This only supports the accuracy of my explanation and CG demo.
In the original, I clearly see a "nude butt" as if on all-fours. Check out the Blu-ray. The liquid (blood) is clearly moving AROUND this nude person on all-fours.
On a seperate note, great CG work in your attempt to say that there is no "naked butt"
why would you omit the 3-dimensional shape from your CGI ? when you've got he split screen, you can see the shape in the film shot, but your blood stream curves down with a smooth grade. The reflections were not the subject, it's the shape, and what it means beyond your ambiguous view of being a rorschach blot. That's the easy way out mann..although you obviously spent a bit of time on your CGI recreation, it doesn't prove anything other than you can emulate lighting in the scene.
@oatstao I dont see the 'shape' you are referring to. The reflections ARE the subject. The only way you can distinguish any shapes within the blood is from the reflections distorted in the shape of the blood. Rob Ager insisted that the reflections I pointed out here ARE parts of a body- that the long white streak as an arm, etc. Although no one else seems to see this but him.
@Xurgonic the CGI doesn't lie! There's a corpse in there. ;-)
Thanks for posting this. Your explanation couldn't have been clearer. And your render is amazing (no other words). I love the comment from someone asking how you got the overhead shot. Ha! (It was a sweet touch, though.)
At 1:55 or so, the reflection you have reflecting is reflecting upside down; the tops of the elevators wouldn't reflect from as pictured in that inset, they'd be flopped. You have the inset pic with the top of the elevator with the floor dial pointing away from the viewer, if it was a true reflection, it would be pointing towards the viewer, wouldn't it?
Otherwise everything else matches perfectly, and I'm convinced your explanation is exactly what people are seeing.
@Hum0ng0us Yur first to notice the unique reflection property here to further confirm my point. A vertically inward bent surface wont invert as expected. Check reflection in flared bell of horn instrument like trumpet with mouth down- similar to shape of pouring blood, or look inside spoon. Thus the elevator reflection is vertically aligned dial at top, door at bottom. Google 'funhouse mirror' for examples- one with red frame on grass shows legs reflected both up & down depending on curve.
@maggio888 Yes, I'm sure Mr Ager makes some good points, but I've seen so many examples of presumptuous overanal-ysis of filmmakers' intentions. Its masturbatory and subjective, and accidents get elevated to genius.
@The0Endless0Thread But what you may try to read as cryptic subliminal message IS merely spontaneous, naturally occurring phenomenon. In this set, it would be impossible to not have these reflections appear as they do. Physics are not understood by most, thus the odd 'shapes' are first seen as mysterious in origin, like a night UFO that is really just a hang glider with LEDs as I've seen. The viewer lacks accurate info, so the shapes serve as an inkblot for the over anal-yzing imagination.
Also, Occam's Razor doesn't apply in a situation in which complexity is deliberately (and very cleverly) employed in meta-narrative and (re: the legendary bizillion takes) a smoke-screen.
@The0Endless0Thread The complexity is coming from Mr Ager's imagination. Occam mostly certainly applies where mysterious interpretation is perpetuated.
@The0Endless0Thread Also, please read the new description on my video "Shining blood "object" explained as reflection" where I attempted to explain how each of the pertinent blood shapes are reflections correlating to the set. If you still think you 'clearly' see an unexplained shape, and if you can describe where it is in the clip, I will try to clarify.
@Xurgonic I don't see an unexplained shape, I see a DEFINITE shape. and it's not reflections.
I won't go into it any furthur because it's almost pointless, but your CGI is missing components and I'm not sure why you would omit some things, unless simply overlooked. Let's just use the original film construct for analysis, because I understand CGI and you can bend it to your will.
@oatstao I'm all for referring only to the film- see my description of "Shining blood "object" explained as reflection" vid. All viewable blood shapes are readily explained as reflections. A dark shape is shown to widen along with the open elevator as the door opens. Reading the comments on Rob's vid, there are countless, drastically different opinions about shapes, thus the validity of a Rorschach blot comparison where nothing as distinct as a body, an axe, Big Wheel, etc is arguable.
Nice presentation but you are ignoring the fact that at 2:33 you can see a solid object on the floor (with what appears to be a bulbous bit in front and angular body behind) which is clearly *deflecting sprays of fluid*... it looks a little like an Oscar to me! (laugh). Your analysis focuses on the moment before the object is most visible and you don't provide a close-up. In Ager's close-ups of this sequence, the object sliding on the floor, in front of the elevator door, is quite visible.
@The0Endless0Thread Everyone projects something different. Ager sent me an outline that is not like what you describe. The bulbous thing is merely the shape of the liquid where it naturally concentrates at the base of the pour & the long lens flattens depth. Reflections 'slide.' There IS a closeup, & see links in description. Theres no more question about reflections since the dial is seen in HD against the white 'arm'/wall, above the red 'body'/door all corresponding precisely with the set.
@Xurgonic No, I clearly see a solid which is maintaining its shape and sliding, a little, while deflecting the fluid in a spray, across the floor under the torrent
@The0Endless0Thread All you see are reflections shifting in the undulating shape of a dark, glossy liquid volume. I guarantee 1000% there is nothing "clearly" visible, hidden in the blood except maybe 'a body, the twins, the axe, Hallorann, Wendy, Dannys Big wheel, a green car(?)' and whatever else people care to project in place of a far more practical, although less commonly understood explanation.
@Xurgonic I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one; I see unnatural deformations in that cascade that indicate the presence of a solid; Mr. Ager makes a persuasive and extremely detailed case for the complexity of Kubrick's "message". His argument has the added advantage of resolving the issue of "continuity errors" and apparent banalities in the aesthetic (eg: "rivers of blood", as an effect, is crashingly banal) of a brilliant perfectionist. Ager's work is sui generis.
@The0Endless0Thread The image link in my description illustrates the precise position of a body Ager sees- a grasping arm which is just reflection of white wall above, a reddish upper torso which is reflection of the red door & so on. I know physics & light whereas Ager speculates intention. You see yet something else so you'll have to post an example. There are errors in this perfectionist's shot- a stray line dangling from the door, & the door stutters open causing the liquid to 'lump' out.
@Xurgonic Nice CG. I tried to explain this over on the comments for the other video, but I couldn't have gotten it any plainer than that. I've seen the same effect with floods.
I do agree that the elevator is supposed to be a smiling face tho (look at the evil dials for eyes ) and this is what the trailer was about. as in the hotel is looking out at the audience who are unawares
@CK2890 The dials do suggest eyes, although that only seems comical to me. But that is no reason to presume Tony MUST be somewhere imperceptibly in the blood as a naked corpse while mysteriously grasping the door or something, as Mr Ager asserts. This idea sounds like something Kubrick would only laugh at. 'HEY why dont we throw 'Tony' in there flopping around like a dead fish, but no one can actually see it!'
I agree wit u while robag has some interesting points a lot of what he says is crazy/stupid such as jack sexually abusing danny etc. and discredits his own interesting points . In this case I fail to see why kubrick would go to such lengths to make something so subliminal that no one would even notice it until a technology (hi def home video) became available that did not even exist in his lifetime never mind when he shot this film. I can belive kubrick was a clever guy but he wasnt (a) god.
@CK2890 When I first demonstrated reflections to Ager he should've objectively admitted at least the possibility. But with little or no counterpoint he just constantly denys many logical points. His fallback is a symbolic 'face' means Tony MUST be there(?), & that others see something vague too although no one seems to see a body positioned as he does. People project seeing the twins to Hallorann, the axe to Danny's Big Wheel!? The shapes seem odd at first but theres a very simple explanation.
@kickodude Far more unlikely is Kubrick constructing an elaborate prosthetic body to represent Tony literally as a nude corpse(why dead or naked?) that oddly holds onto something (how if dead, & to what?) while flopping out on cue (at about 6X the speed in the film) while remaining a precise distance close enough to just barely be seen within the thick blood yet the limbs & head stay perfectly within the undulating volume, amidst an already tediously difficult shot... as Mr Ager insists.
The "blood" that you created with CGI is alot glossier than the original. The texture aslo seems way too rough to be that reflective. Whatever the object is, Im sure that it is an actual object . This is because while the entire liquid moves, the "object" stays in place for a few seconds. If it wasn't solid, the reflection would not be visible for that long. And if it was a reflection, the whit strip would not be where you are indicating it to be, it wuld be on the other side. you are wrong here
@kickodude See description and links. The CG volume is different, but texture is same as the real thing. Wendy's closest POV in the film shows the dial reflected against the white wall/'white strip' just above the brown frame which blends invisibly into the blood color, & above the red door/red 'object'. Its ALL there in the film & CG. Reflections 'move' according surface angle changes, not motion of the blood. Like how a mirror can move side to side without the reflections appearing to move.
@mikeppal In the film, we see three different angles covering this scene but none of the cameras appear centered on the set. The 'trailer' angle seems centered at first but if you follow the perspective lines it is actually placed right of center and panned to appear centered. So it leads me to think there probably was another camera that was centered as a master angle, and maybe other cameras rolling as well, perhaps at different speeds, to capture the unique event.
@mikeppal Glad some people can see reason. Try explaining it to Mr Ager. When I first saw Rob's assertion, there seemed to be an odd bulge at the base of the pour, but I couldn't believe he was imagining the bright reflections to actually be objects, let alone a corpse, inside the blood. It demonstrates how little he understands about refraction or reflection, and how overactive his imagination. He'll never admit it since his whole rep is built on his creative interpretations.
You said it best in the 'Rorschach blot' reference. Kubrick did have a love on going with what he got on the day, take wise, if he saw something interesting in it. He planned meticulously, of course, but I doubt he'd cast aside an interesting shot, simply because he hadn't planned it that way. I think this was, like you say, a happy accident. Given that Kubrick would of been in to the happy accident, I think he left it in so it would act as an ink blot, as you suggest.
Your freeze frame from 1.32 to 1.54 shows the key difference. The reflections you mention are up and left of the highlights that are in question. Your version shows the red door reflected downwards across an almost flat area of water - the original shows a broken, static area of highlifghts that shift very slightly to the left, indicating an object that is slightly moved by the continuous gushing blood after it flops out the door. I think that satisfies the Occam's Razor approach. ...
@robag88 ... Not the that Occam's is a universal rule (the periodic table is more complex than previous theories).
Something else that puts your recreation into question is that in your full video version you've made the chair on the far right move in exactly the same way as the original. The chances of that happening even under an exact physical reproduction are remote, yet you've managed to do it with CG blood that flows more like treacle than water ... suggesting a rigged experiment.
@robag88 The chair is hand keyframed as I did not care to spend more weeks futzing with RealFlow hard dynamics when there was no reason to. But the lighting, the flow of the liquid, and the reflections that are so similar to the reflections in the actual shot are all spontaneous. If you think I faked the reflections, Lightwave is free to install the trial version. I will send you a scene and you can check for yourself.
@Xurgonic If you admit to having keyframed the chair movement then it's purely a matter of trust if you say you didn't keyframe the water as well. Personally I'm willing to give you the benefity of the doubt on that, though I still see a complete mismatch between the highlights you point out and the bulbous object in the original footage. And as i've already mentioned the treacle-like thickness of water in your video is very different to the detailed water splashing in the original vid.
@robag88 As I said, I'll gladly give a scene u can load & inspect yourself. My rep in the CG community also speaks for itself. There's no 'object,' only naturally occurring reflections & what may seem a bulge(?) where liquid naturally accumulates at the base of the pour. A precisely matched shape doesnt matter. The film & CG both appropriately indicate REFLECTIONS corresponding to position and colors of features of the set. U STILL ignore the red shape corresponding with the red reflection.
@robag88 Yur nitpicking. Before, you thought the highlites ARE objects (an arm, etc) but you now seem to say the shape of highlites indicate an object bulging beneath. Reflections will shift with the changing shape of the liquid having nothing to do with an object. My reflections contort very similarly without an object. A difference is the depth of my pour shape is longer. You still ignore the fact the RED 'object' on the right is the RED door reflection & the dial is reflected in the film.
@Xurgonic Nitpicking? It's strange that you go to all the effort of making CG reconstructions and posting 50 or so comments on my video over several months (frequently with unnecessary sarcasm). I see UFO sighting vids I disagree with, but I just leave a quick rating or comment then let other viewers form their own opinions, just as the description of my elevator blood vid invites the viewer to form their own opinion ...
@robag88 ... There are dozens more vids on my channel, yet you haven't commented on them as far as I can tell. I've got a 3 part vid on The Shining, showing a variety of subliminals encoded by Kubrick, and there's a huge article about The Shining on my site (inc tons of production info). Have you looked at all into the production of The Shining or Kubrick's working methods? I think you should before claiming with "1000%" certainty that there is nothing subliminal in the blood river shots.
@robag88 You ignore the white 'arm and torso' claimed before & now focus on the RED 'head' reflection of the RED door, U still have no answer for. Subtleties appear different due to unknowable dimension specifics. The 'broken area' is merely reflection of both doors with divider between. Why is impossible to see how reflections 'shift' in an undulating shape as pouring liquid? The door stutter causes blood to gush at varied thickness and angle. See new description in my other explanation clip.
Excellent and convincing job. I'm so glad you produced the CG showing the blood flowing at 24 fps. I always wanted to see that and now you did it. Maybe you could take the real scene and speed that up 6 times too.. I'd love to see that
I have read the whole discussion between you and robag, but i have to stick with your story. I think people miscalculate reality when they see something in slow-motion.
The animation shows everything, its very well made, i work with 3dsMax myself so i can imagine how much effort you put in this.
Its also cool to follow this discussion because both sides know they are right for sure. Its in a way like atheism vs creatonism. Anyway, im on your side. The side thats right ;)
Rob doesnt claim to know he is right, but I do 1000%. He ignores & denies thorough explanation, has no logical response to many direct points or questions, & pretends the CG reflections dont exist. Yes, he projects creative meaning where there objectively is none, which IS more fun to do. But there's a difference between imaginative speculating and observing facts. He insists that if the dials resemble Danny's eyes, it MUST mean Tony is flopping out dead(?) in the blood. Quite a leap in logic.
@Xurgonic Really? Quite a leap in logic? When I heard that there might be something in the river of blood, I immediately thought it was Tony. I'm not saying there is or there isn't, but that is the thing that would make sense the most.
@vinson If dials are Danny's eyes then assuming the door is his mouth vomiting a river of Navajo blood, the leap is presuming Tony MUST appear also. Nothing about this makes sense under scrutiny & is a vague stab at validating a misconception. See the image link in my description. Depicting Tony as a literal dead body here seems silly. Why dead or naked, how does a dead body grip anything? The elevator features clearly align as reflections in shape & color in the film. What more do you need?
@Xurgonic If the elevators and the dial are supposed to represent Danny's face, then, IF an object comes out of the elevators (and I'm not arguing that anything does), it wouldn't be a leap in logic in the least to assume that that object isTony. To assume that it is a Native American or one of the girls is a farther stretch.
Comment removed
anthonyjthorne 2 days ago
Comment removed
anthonyjthorne 2 days ago
Comment removed
anthonyjthorne 2 days ago
can u explain what the blood is obviously running over for like 3 seconds, its a giant lump and can not be the lump because it clearly runs on top and over "it" whether its a dead body or not, well, only Kubrick will know, seeing how this was not in the book.
poopstain742 1 week ago
when i mean i can not be the lump, i mean the lump made by the blood
poopstain742 1 week ago
@poopstain742 *sigh* There is no lump. The crushed depth & contorted reflections may make it appear to resemble one. Like how an inferior mirage may resemble distant water, or how the Moon may seem larger on the horizon, or how bugs photographed with a long shutter may look like tiny, interdimensional "rods", or how a Rorschach inkblot may look like a rabbit... thats not what it actually is. A bit of natural physics explains it. Or you can keep believing the voices in your head.
Xurgonic 1 week ago
i never thought of anything other than reflections, i guess peoples minds just get carried away in the moment.
SkinGrindCleaver 2 weeks ago
Maybe it's a Monolith?
TheNinjaIke 1 month ago
Am I missing something here...was anyone claiming the scene was real or something? I don't get the reason why you would have to prove something like this. I mean its common knowledge that everything you see in movies is fabricated.
IndieDaily 1 month ago
@IndieDaily If you read the first line/link in the description...
Xurgonic 1 month ago
Oh...well the other guy is a joke then...why would he make such a big deal over nothing.
IndieDaily 1 month ago
@IndieDaily Reality is disappointing so people concoct meaning and mystery where they can. An undetermined light in the nite sky is automatically aliens, a flying insect motion blurred in camera is an interdimensional 'rod', a strange sound in the night or a spec of dust floating close to lens out of focus must be a ghost, and a distorted reflection is a movie child's inner voice literally flopping out of the elevator as a naked dead body that no one else sees but one film anal-yzer.
Xurgonic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in the movie, in the bar room scene, it shows jack drinking jack daniel's whiskey. hmmmm. jack was drinking jack daniels. i don't recall whether the original novel showed jack drinking jack daniel's whiskey, but i do recall that the original novel said that the real name of jack was john daniel torrance. thus, we have jack daniel drinking jack daniel's whiskey.
coventrygardens 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a boring and crummy video. fuck you. wanker.
goldygordy4 3 months ago
@goldygordy4 Your comment is fake & gay.
Xurgonic 3 months ago 5
@Xurgonic Pretty on-time comment and you are the gay one.
MrRockjock13 2 months ago
interesting. Thanks for the upload. I've always been intrigued by THE SHINING and of course, any behind the scenes footage
msmithstud 3 months ago
@msmithstud On the dvd Making Of, theres only a brief shot of someone sweeping up blood after this scene.
Xurgonic 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is soooo fucking stupid!!!!!
godownweeniegodown23 3 months ago
The music is creepy... :)
Jadama0 4 months ago
@Jadama0 omg yes!
But not as creepy as the Alternate Trailer of The Shining.
Mymovieworld1 3 months ago
Very nice! Great simulation + lighting. Where do you work?
screamingskull 4 months ago
@screamingskull Thanx, but its not really a great sim. I freelance from home. Dig your stuff!
Xurgonic 4 months ago
I have no idea what's going on in this video.
resh2k 5 months ago
@resh2k Did you read the first sentence of the description?
Xurgonic 5 months ago
I applaud your effort. It demonstrates how conspiracy theories can be debunked using modern technology.
olaniyi570 5 months ago
@olaniyi570 I dont necessarily trust CGI to prove or disprove anything. In this case, reflections just make complete sense if you study lighting a bit.
Xurgonic 5 months ago
This is what I always thought! LOL It's tempting to believe that Stanley put something into this disturbing and amazing sequence, but I don't think he did. He leaves the sequence unadulterated and standing on its own for the viewer to decide what it means (without any added "mysteries").
tall32guy 5 months ago
@tall32guy Yup. Why clutter and convolute?
Xurgonic 5 months ago
soo this whole scene with the blood is fake??
ninmachine109 5 months ago
@ninmachine109 Fake AND gay. No the filmmakers shot at the Timberline Lodge in Oregon which has an actual haunted elevator that spews real human blood every hour.
Xurgonic 5 months ago 18
@Xurgonic I knew it! They lied to me on the tour....
TimmyisDepressing 5 months ago
@Xurgonic
haha :D ,.. but yeah they shot in timberline lodge and the hotel is said to be haunted : S
WeLWets 4 months ago
@WeLWets Kubrick used the real lodge only for front exteriors. All interiors were shot on a set. The funny thing is, EVERY building is haunted according to employees who work late in them. :)
Xurgonic 4 months ago
@Xurgonic Oddly enough, I worked the night shift in a psychiatric hospital for about 8 years and never heard or saw anything that I'd classify as paranormal. I was doing double duty as both security guard (walking around alone at night throughout the entire building) and tech work on the numerous lockdown units. I'm open to the possibility of paranormal activity, though I don't assume it's there and don't seek it out. Never had any issues with ghosts. Some co-workers however...
HankLafayette 3 months ago
@ninmachine109 O_o
xFLYBATx 5 months ago
Cool CGI!
themirrorsofmymind 5 months ago
this is just one of those stupid "this is fake and gay and heres why vids" move along people nothing to see here.
ventHARAS 5 months ago
lol what the fuck was the point of this?
10lettername 6 months ago
@10lettername Read the description.
Xurgonic 6 months ago
@Xurgonic
Okay I get it, the things that appear as fleshy objects are actually reflections, but did you really need to go out of your way to spend time on explaining such a trivial thing? That's like me making a documentary on how you shouldn't cook board game pieces and eat them. Sure I might bring up some interesting facts, but it's overall trivial I would have wasted my time making it.
10lettername 6 months ago
@10lettername The cg was not done just for the explanation. I only spent a few hours doing this part. Ager & I are film fans & we work in movies so its not trivial to us. Ager's comments r filled with people intrigued by the subject while some could care less. The equivalent would be u making a brief doc explaining an interest u might be passionate about. I see many guys post gameplay of themselves playing some stupid videogame & I think 'who cares,' but thats what they're into.
Xurgonic 6 months ago
someone has too much time on their hands!
blessedwithapizza 6 months ago
Kubrick also liked to play mind games with people when approached by the media. Kubrick was infamous for throwing in little hidden cues in his movies and reshooting a scene over and over hundreds of times to get it just right. It could very well be a trick of the blood splattering or a prop. Either way I think Kubrick intended it to look like that to get people to think that. That scene alone I believe was reshot the most in the entire movie.
Nagneto 6 months ago
I will concur given your example that it is most likely a trick of the light and reflection of the elevator.
Nagneto 6 months ago
@Nagneto Yes I know all about Kubrick. But there is no prop or anything else hidden in the blood. All the 'shapes' are accounted for by reflections of the set.
Xurgonic 6 months ago
My only issue is in the real footage, the blood seems to splash and bounce off the "object", and it seems to redirect the flow around it before it is completely swallowed by the flow.
superdemon 6 months ago 3
@superdemon The shape you imagine is defined by distorted reflections and the crushed depth of a long lens.
Xurgonic 6 months ago
@Xurgonic But that doesn't explain the "splach" and redirection of the flowing liquid...
I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying I am confused.
superdemon 4 months ago
@superdemon There is no redirection. Part of the confusion is due to how it was shot with a long lens which greatly compresses apparent depth. The conical shape extends toward camera a greater distance than it seems (view my final render), and the liquid naturally accumulates at the floor to form an elongated shape that SEEMS like a shorter 'bulge' due to the long lens. Then the reflections create an optical illusion as if the the liquid is shaped unusually.
Xurgonic 4 months ago 2
Oooooooohhhh I get it
CheeseyPie12 6 months ago
At 1:10 there is a cat made out of blood in the lower right hand corner of the screen. Does any one else see it? Thumbs up only if you do :)
hilolman13 6 months ago 2
@hilolman13 Put down the bong.
Xurgonic 6 months ago 10
I say two things, one, in your image with the body, that's not how I think the body came out, more like it is half in the elevator, half out, but your explanation is also reasonable. Now, think about this, what if it is supposed to look like a body, kubrick did all that just so he could have some creepy looking item in the water, that may or may not resemble a possibly desecated corpse.
ZombieShooter123 7 months ago
@ZombieShooter123 I've studied this more than anyone. Dead, nude Tony in the blood is TOO literal for Kubrick. Why dead? Why nude? No one ever thought anything was in the blood before Ager. My body render shows what he sees, which no one else sees. Once he pointed out an odd shape, everyone started seeing something different. If no one sees the same thing, that means its nothing, like an inkblot, its in your imagination. Every detail in the blood is accounted for by reflections.
Xurgonic 7 months ago 4
@Xurgonic I know, I was merely pointing out that when I think dead body coming out of and elevator, I think that it fell face first, so tony was stuck half in and half out. ANd, I never thought it might be tony coming out of the elevator, I thought it might be some representation of what was at the hotel, literally a bloodbath waiting to happen.
ZombieShooter123 7 months ago
What´s the point with all this?
gamakatzu 7 months ago
@gamakatzu Its a response to "THE SHINING - SOMETHING IN THE RIVER OF BLOOD".
Xurgonic 7 months ago
I love the detailed explanation of the reflections using colour :)
MrPibi 8 months ago
so the object is not a human body
noangel931 8 months ago
@noangel931 Check the 'further explanation' link in the description. That is how Ager sees a body as he outlined in an image he sent to me. I have yet to read anyone of anyone else seeing the same thing. Each person projects something different- like what a cloud is shaped like.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic I only recently started watching Ager's videos. His interpretations seem bizarre. Pareidolia run rampant, or otherwise an inability to understand how film continuity works--i.e. if the screed fades to black at the intermission, you're seeing the monolith. Bizarre.
how many man hours did this video take you, by the way?
HConstantine 7 months ago
@HConstantine Three months.
Xurgonic 7 months ago
Great work Xurgonic!!! Its quite nice what you have done. Now, did you take account that the blood seems to be "over" the "object" and it flows "in between"? What do you think? Cool work though! :D
bizarroman69 8 months ago
@bizarroman69 Am not sure what you mean. Some interpret the curved reflections to mean the liquid is flowing over an object but the bell shaped curve is natural. There's a bit of bulge at the base of the pour that naturally occurs as liquid accumulates, & the pour extends forward toward camera a greater distance than is initially perceived (view overhead render) with a long lens, thus it appears compressed into a smaller lump. I dont know what you mean by 'inbetween.'
Xurgonic 8 months ago
I'm not sure I'm convinced with your explanation because when the red "fleshy" object is clearly seen on the floor, the rest of the blood pours out and basically covers it up- but not completely. In fact, I can see clearly how the blood splashes out from the top of the "fleshy" object, but the object can still be seen. If it was just a reflection, don't you think the object would no longer have been seen? After the rest of the blood pours out, the "reflection" or "fleshy" object would no longer
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan be seen. Look clearly how the object can still be seen a few seconds after the blood splashes out from the top of the object.
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan Why would a reflection ever be covered up? It would always appear 'on top' as long as the surface is somewhat smooth and in view. Look at the 'body' link in my description. THAT's precisely what Ager described that he sees in an outline he sent- head, torso & reaching arm, which NO ONE else sees. Reflections bulge & distort in the rounded shape of the pour & yur brain projects something INside the blood when it's not. All 'objects' match features of the reflected elevator.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic But that's the thing, blood pours out from the top of the 'reflection' and that specific part is not the same as it was before the rest of the blood poured out. The bottom part of the 'reflection' still remains visible-and that's impossible. If anything, it may not be a "fleshy" object at all, maybe just a bag of congealed blood, as other people believe. Yet it is a solid object nonetheless. It would be impossible for a mere reflection to distort itself the way it is distorted here.
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan ? Not clear what u refer, but the RED object is reflection of the RED door, visible from aft initial splash clears to when the wall splash covers. The open door reflects, as does the blood itself. Ager's torso & arm are explained away, but some still insist on some blob lurking although there's no point to it. No reason for glaring 'congealed blood' bag error to occur aft meticulous, multiple takes. Similar reflections appear in CG recreation so is not 'impossible.'
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic This is what I see: When the blood starts pouring out, a metallic, coppery gold, object lands on the floor. It has two hollow rectangle shapes in the middle (you interpret this as reflections of the doors). And when the rest of the blood starts pouring out, it splashes out from the top of this metallic object, but this object can still be seen a few seconds after even more blood pours out. Your explanation is very logical, but when I see it like that.... I wonder...?
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan I see nothing evenly remotely resembling what you describe. U r the only one seeing a gold thing with hollow rectangles. The issue began with Ager imagining a body holding a cable. Another sees a bike, axe, or any one of infinite objects or characters, thus indicating imaginary Rorschach, 'UFO' assumptions about something that's just not objectively understood. Like a magic trick, there's a simple explanation that isn't apparent at first, & requires a bit of understanding of physics.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic Lol, you know what, don't work yourself out trying to explain this to me. I see your explanation of it and it sounds very logical. What I see may sound very strange, but that's literally what I see and I may be seeing it wrong, but I am still sure it is a solid object- whatever it may be. Thank you for your explanations, I really appreciate them. It also sounds logical that it could be a body...who knows.... but again, thanks.
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan Am 1000% certain there's nothing in the blood but the viewer's imagination. Incidence reflection in an odd shape may seem as something else(like a mirage) but flattened depth & slomo distort perception, & few understand light physics. The pour is shaped different & moves at higher velocity than seems. In HD, u can even make out the dial reflected in the blood exactly aligned with all the other elevators features described. A dead 'Tony' is too literal & nonsensical for Kubrick.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic But isn't it also explained in a document that during the shooting of this film, Kubrick took a lot of time filming this particular scene with the blood? He shot it countless times until he was sure the blood scene looked 'perfect'. Don't you think he would have noticed this? Maybe if it was just a reflection, he couldn't have been bothered to fix it, but I don't know. Hey, you might be right. I've watched The Shining many many times and I only noticed this until recently after years.
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan The number of Kubrick's takes are often exaggerated. There were 3 takes of this scene. There's no reason to 'fix' reflections that would naturally occur. Kubrick used the light as it naturally occurred on a realistic set, without special stage lighting. It would be impossible for these reflections to NOT show up as they do. Rob Ager has just made a big deal out of nothing here, as he spends his time speculating. Fans often dig meaning from films that was never consciously intended.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic Right, I see what you mean. But just look at the scene a few more times. When I see that object appear, the rest of the blood pouring out splashes from the top and the sides of the supposed object, but it doesn't cover it up. The whole scene is filling up with blood, blood splashing from all sides, but I can still see the object. This does not justify it as a reflection because the top of the 'reflection' distorts, but not the bottom...[continued]...
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan Seriously, look closely. At the very top of the object, blood starts splashing out. Before the whole scene is over, I can still see this object. When the rest of the blood is out, a reflection would no longer be visible because the bottom of the floor is covered in blood. Put it like this: a heavy object is put on the grass outside. Put a hose behind it and release a strong current of water out and you see how water would splash from all around the object, but doesn't cover it up...
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan I've literally studied this scene more than anyone on the planet. Yur mind insists on interpreting an object. Liquid naturally bulges at the base of the pour which u see as if pouring over something. In the same spot, the rectangular doors & walls are reflected (the rectangles u see). The reflection is also correctly non-inverted. If the dial is seen, in middle of the white wall, above the red door, within the brown frame, etc, ALL arranged same in reflection, then its a reflection.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic Okay.
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan Dont sound convinced :-) If the 'arm' that Ager insists as part of a 'body' is indeed a curved reflection of the white wall above as I explain, then the dial could also be seen there. 3 angles were used in the film. The 3rd angle, seen from Wendy's POV near end, is the closest angle. Its just a speck on dvd, but you CAN see the dial right where it should be located in reflection. Is clearer in HD. That proves Ager is confused. ALL 'objects' r accounted for as reflections of the set.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic Well, I suppose so. I'll still watch the Shining a few more times to make sure I'm not just focusing too much on unnecessary things. But for the most part, your explanation sounds very accurate. Other reviews I've seen go too far with this and make pretty ridiculous theories on it. Thanks for everything, I appreciate it :D
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan We prefer mystery. I once read Lynch's comment on a critic expounding on the symbolism behind a moment where Henry removes his wet sock in Eraserhead, from the opposite foot he stepped in a puddle with earlier. He said they shot the 2 scenes far apart & it was simply a matter of no one remembering the correct foot. I've heard countless dvd commentaries of filmmakers' amusement at symbolism that critics invent or at least was not consciously intended. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic Yeah, that's true. And I guess The Shining was an interesting movie to find 'hidden' messages in because it was directed by Kubrick and was based on a Stephen King book. And I understand it does have a few hidden messages here and there, but not to the point where things can sometimes be explained with simple logic.
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan Ager believes Kubrick is without flaw but there r MANY continuity errors in Shining, as ALL movies. Some may be interpreted as intentional but most definitely r not. Google "continuity errors in The Shining"- moviemistakes, & jonnys53.blogspot has pics. Kubrick shot many takes on long schedules as discontinuity was more inevitable. All filmmakers edit for effect & pacing OVER continuity. It isnt THAT important as 99% of viewers wont notice. Its that 1% who slowmo dvds & over anal-yze.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic Well, of course. Even the best cook burns his food sometimes. Nothing in this world is perfect. But hey, thanks for the site, I'll go check it out :D
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan Hahahah, yes. Many of those comments posted on that "continuity errors in The Shining" page are errors that I have noticed as I watched The Shining many times. There are probably a few more that I can come up with myself right now. Seeing as this movie also has its many errors, I can now see how this blood scene may have had its error as well. I guess I wasn't fully informed when I began my argument. Thanks for bearing with me and helping me see things in a different perspective :)
SexiTRfan 8 months ago
@SexiTRfan
Yes, you are right. But there is another interesting detail: the two pointers above the elevators doors together signify the number 23 (2+3). Kubrick chose the 23.5.1980 as the official release date of his film.
Illuminatus! He saw the Illuminati as the source of the bloodflow; the constant massmurder-sacrifice in the world...
Kreischzwerg 8 months ago
There are two vents on the floor before the blood pours out, and the spouts of blood seen later seem to come out of those vents!
Tundraboy05 8 months ago
@Tundraboy05 If you look closely, the blood splashes from the corners, not the vents. At smaller scale, liquid seems to splash more aggressively. The blood appears to splash too high off every object, because it is a miniature scale. There are also narrow vertical corners behind the white walls (seen in other angles of the hallway in the film) that channel the liquid upward, as seen in my overhead render. Also, the slowmo & long lens used diminish the apparent velocity of the blood.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
@Xurgonic Yes, but I'm talking about the area in front of the narrow vertical corners, where the vents are.
When the blood is halfway down the hallway, you can see the blood appear to be splashing off of the floor, where the vents are, so there might be a connection to the pumps and hoses under them.
Tundraboy05 8 months ago
@Tundraboy05 No, the blood does not appear to splash from the vents, only further out where the floor meets the walls and furniture. The physics of miniature dimensions account for all the liquid behavior seen here. There was no need for convoluted pumps and hoses. And as the event was shot at high speed, it would be extremely difficult to blend and time the trigger of any secondary jets of liquid. Imagine having to do this while observing the normal 24fps speed.
Xurgonic 8 months ago
Actually, the red streak was where some of it got on the door. Otherwise great analysis
MrUbertubers 9 months ago
@MrUbertubers What red streak?
Xurgonic 9 months ago
excellent work.
WillWebbful 9 months ago
wow you obiously put a bit of work into this with the c.g animation big thumbs up for he dedication.
AYRAYR1 9 months ago
@AYRAYR1 The animation was done just for fun, to max out a new workstation, and not for this explanation.
Xurgonic 9 months ago
@AYRAYR1 even though mate still quite slickly done looks real pro.
AYRAYR1 9 months ago
@AYRAYR1 even though mate still quite slickly done looks real pro. so many vids on youtube are crudely done of which i'm guilty of..
AYRAYR1 9 months ago
Well done!
cormentem 9 months ago
The reflection you compare should be flipped.
MrJkizzle123 10 months ago
@MrJkizzle123 Actually not. Check reflection in the flared bell of a horn instrument like a trumpet with the mouth down (similar to shape of blood pour), or look at lower inside of a spoon. The reflection is not inverted as expected in a flat surface reflection. Google 'funhouse mirror' for images- there's one with a red frame on grass that shows legs reflected both up & down depending on the surface curve direction. This only supports the accuracy of my explanation and CG demo.
Xurgonic 10 months ago
I just see the elevator as a vag losing it's virginity. That's my interpretation.
TheJadewuzhere 10 months ago
such a kiss-ass
BCPSTUDIOS101 10 months ago
In the original, I clearly see a "nude butt" as if on all-fours. Check out the Blu-ray. The liquid (blood) is clearly moving AROUND this nude person on all-fours.
On a seperate note, great CG work in your attempt to say that there is no "naked butt"
frozenpinky 11 months ago
@frozenpinky I see Olivia Wilde's 'naked butt.' And it's talking to me. But then I see that in every blood explosion.
Xurgonic 11 months ago
why would you omit the 3-dimensional shape from your CGI ? when you've got he split screen, you can see the shape in the film shot, but your blood stream curves down with a smooth grade. The reflections were not the subject, it's the shape, and what it means beyond your ambiguous view of being a rorschach blot. That's the easy way out mann..although you obviously spent a bit of time on your CGI recreation, it doesn't prove anything other than you can emulate lighting in the scene.
oatstao 1 year ago
@oatstao I dont see the 'shape' you are referring to. The reflections ARE the subject. The only way you can distinguish any shapes within the blood is from the reflections distorted in the shape of the blood. Rob Ager insisted that the reflections I pointed out here ARE parts of a body- that the long white streak as an arm, etc. Although no one else seems to see this but him.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@Xurgonic the CGI doesn't lie! There's a corpse in there. ;-)
Thanks for posting this. Your explanation couldn't have been clearer. And your render is amazing (no other words). I love the comment from someone asking how you got the overhead shot. Ha! (It was a sweet touch, though.)
subtropolis 10 months ago
1:28 .....do you see the face in the 2 one...the old one...
blank21121 1 year ago
@blank21121 No... is it Jesus, or Elvis?
Xurgonic 1 year ago
At 1:55 or so, the reflection you have reflecting is reflecting upside down; the tops of the elevators wouldn't reflect from as pictured in that inset, they'd be flopped. You have the inset pic with the top of the elevator with the floor dial pointing away from the viewer, if it was a true reflection, it would be pointing towards the viewer, wouldn't it?
Otherwise everything else matches perfectly, and I'm convinced your explanation is exactly what people are seeing.
It's all so very groovy!!
Hum0ng0us 1 year ago
@Hum0ng0us Yur first to notice the unique reflection property here to further confirm my point. A vertically inward bent surface wont invert as expected. Check reflection in flared bell of horn instrument like trumpet with mouth down- similar to shape of pouring blood, or look inside spoon. Thus the elevator reflection is vertically aligned dial at top, door at bottom. Google 'funhouse mirror' for examples- one with red frame on grass shows legs reflected both up & down depending on curve.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@Xurgonic - Right!! I understand!! I completely forgot about the bend in the blood flopping the reflection image! ^_^
Awesome stuff!!
Hum0ng0us 1 year ago
nothing there, proof that some people have too much time on their hands. Re: wizard of oz and pink floyd.
maggio888 1 year ago
@maggio888 Yes, I'm sure Mr Ager makes some good points, but I've seen so many examples of presumptuous overanal-ysis of filmmakers' intentions. Its masturbatory and subjective, and accidents get elevated to genius.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
the CG looks awesome. who did that?
shani6969 1 year ago
@The0Endless0Thread But what you may try to read as cryptic subliminal message IS merely spontaneous, naturally occurring phenomenon. In this set, it would be impossible to not have these reflections appear as they do. Physics are not understood by most, thus the odd 'shapes' are first seen as mysterious in origin, like a night UFO that is really just a hang glider with LEDs as I've seen. The viewer lacks accurate info, so the shapes serve as an inkblot for the over anal-yzing imagination.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
Also, Occam's Razor doesn't apply in a situation in which complexity is deliberately (and very cleverly) employed in meta-narrative and (re: the legendary bizillion takes) a smoke-screen.
The0Endless0Thread 1 year ago
@The0Endless0Thread The complexity is coming from Mr Ager's imagination. Occam mostly certainly applies where mysterious interpretation is perpetuated.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@The0Endless0Thread Also, please read the new description on my video "Shining blood "object" explained as reflection" where I attempted to explain how each of the pertinent blood shapes are reflections correlating to the set. If you still think you 'clearly' see an unexplained shape, and if you can describe where it is in the clip, I will try to clarify.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@Xurgonic I don't see an unexplained shape, I see a DEFINITE shape. and it's not reflections.
I won't go into it any furthur because it's almost pointless, but your CGI is missing components and I'm not sure why you would omit some things, unless simply overlooked. Let's just use the original film construct for analysis, because I understand CGI and you can bend it to your will.
oatstao 1 year ago
@oatstao I'm all for referring only to the film- see my description of "Shining blood "object" explained as reflection" vid. All viewable blood shapes are readily explained as reflections. A dark shape is shown to widen along with the open elevator as the door opens. Reading the comments on Rob's vid, there are countless, drastically different opinions about shapes, thus the validity of a Rorschach blot comparison where nothing as distinct as a body, an axe, Big Wheel, etc is arguable.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
Nice presentation but you are ignoring the fact that at 2:33 you can see a solid object on the floor (with what appears to be a bulbous bit in front and angular body behind) which is clearly *deflecting sprays of fluid*... it looks a little like an Oscar to me! (laugh). Your analysis focuses on the moment before the object is most visible and you don't provide a close-up. In Ager's close-ups of this sequence, the object sliding on the floor, in front of the elevator door, is quite visible.
The0Endless0Thread 1 year ago
@The0Endless0Thread Everyone projects something different. Ager sent me an outline that is not like what you describe. The bulbous thing is merely the shape of the liquid where it naturally concentrates at the base of the pour & the long lens flattens depth. Reflections 'slide.' There IS a closeup, & see links in description. Theres no more question about reflections since the dial is seen in HD against the white 'arm'/wall, above the red 'body'/door all corresponding precisely with the set.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
Comment removed
The0Endless0Thread 1 year ago
@Xurgonic No, I clearly see a solid which is maintaining its shape and sliding, a little, while deflecting the fluid in a spray, across the floor under the torrent
The0Endless0Thread 1 year ago
@The0Endless0Thread All you see are reflections shifting in the undulating shape of a dark, glossy liquid volume. I guarantee 1000% there is nothing "clearly" visible, hidden in the blood except maybe 'a body, the twins, the axe, Hallorann, Wendy, Dannys Big wheel, a green car(?)' and whatever else people care to project in place of a far more practical, although less commonly understood explanation.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@Xurgonic I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one; I see unnatural deformations in that cascade that indicate the presence of a solid; Mr. Ager makes a persuasive and extremely detailed case for the complexity of Kubrick's "message". His argument has the added advantage of resolving the issue of "continuity errors" and apparent banalities in the aesthetic (eg: "rivers of blood", as an effect, is crashingly banal) of a brilliant perfectionist. Ager's work is sui generis.
The0Endless0Thread 1 year ago
@The0Endless0Thread The image link in my description illustrates the precise position of a body Ager sees- a grasping arm which is just reflection of white wall above, a reddish upper torso which is reflection of the red door & so on. I know physics & light whereas Ager speculates intention. You see yet something else so you'll have to post an example. There are errors in this perfectionist's shot- a stray line dangling from the door, & the door stutters open causing the liquid to 'lump' out.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
robag88 just over analyzed.
helpdonate1 1 year ago
u cn use ur skills on something relevant instead of a useless argument
tharbk01 1 year ago
@Xurgonic Nice CG. I tried to explain this over on the comments for the other video, but I couldn't have gotten it any plainer than that. I've seen the same effect with floods.
cereuleanblue 1 year ago
I do agree that the elevator is supposed to be a smiling face tho (look at the evil dials for eyes ) and this is what the trailer was about. as in the hotel is looking out at the audience who are unawares
CK2890 1 year ago
@CK2890 The dials do suggest eyes, although that only seems comical to me. But that is no reason to presume Tony MUST be somewhere imperceptibly in the blood as a naked corpse while mysteriously grasping the door or something, as Mr Ager asserts. This idea sounds like something Kubrick would only laugh at. 'HEY why dont we throw 'Tony' in there flopping around like a dead fish, but no one can actually see it!'
Xurgonic 1 year ago
I agree wit u while robag has some interesting points a lot of what he says is crazy/stupid such as jack sexually abusing danny etc. and discredits his own interesting points . In this case I fail to see why kubrick would go to such lengths to make something so subliminal that no one would even notice it until a technology (hi def home video) became available that did not even exist in his lifetime never mind when he shot this film. I can belive kubrick was a clever guy but he wasnt (a) god.
CK2890 1 year ago
@CK2890 When I first demonstrated reflections to Ager he should've objectively admitted at least the possibility. But with little or no counterpoint he just constantly denys many logical points. His fallback is a symbolic 'face' means Tony MUST be there(?), & that others see something vague too although no one seems to see a body positioned as he does. People project seeing the twins to Hallorann, the axe to Danny's Big Wheel!? The shapes seem odd at first but theres a very simple explanation.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
Though this theory could be somehow possible, but i personally think it is unlikely,
but your skills with CGI are very good, you could make your own movies if you wanted to. What program do you use?
kickodude 1 year ago
@kickodude Far more unlikely is Kubrick constructing an elaborate prosthetic body to represent Tony literally as a nude corpse(why dead or naked?) that oddly holds onto something (how if dead, & to what?) while flopping out on cue (at about 6X the speed in the film) while remaining a precise distance close enough to just barely be seen within the thick blood yet the limbs & head stay perfectly within the undulating volume, amidst an already tediously difficult shot... as Mr Ager insists.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
The "blood" that you created with CGI is alot glossier than the original. The texture aslo seems way too rough to be that reflective. Whatever the object is, Im sure that it is an actual object . This is because while the entire liquid moves, the "object" stays in place for a few seconds. If it wasn't solid, the reflection would not be visible for that long. And if it was a reflection, the whit strip would not be where you are indicating it to be, it wuld be on the other side. you are wrong here
kickodude 1 year ago
@kickodude See description and links. The CG volume is different, but texture is same as the real thing. Wendy's closest POV in the film shows the dial reflected against the white wall/'white strip' just above the brown frame which blends invisibly into the blood color, & above the red door/red 'object'. Its ALL there in the film & CG. Reflections 'move' according surface angle changes, not motion of the blood. Like how a mirror can move side to side without the reflections appearing to move.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@mikeppal In the film, we see three different angles covering this scene but none of the cameras appear centered on the set. The 'trailer' angle seems centered at first but if you follow the perspective lines it is actually placed right of center and panned to appear centered. So it leads me to think there probably was another camera that was centered as a master angle, and maybe other cameras rolling as well, perhaps at different speeds, to capture the unique event.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
Great rendering job and a great response to the "...Something in the river of blood" video.
bwdaz 1 year ago
you guys have problems.
gardenartisan 1 year ago
@mikeppal Glad some people can see reason. Try explaining it to Mr Ager. When I first saw Rob's assertion, there seemed to be an odd bulge at the base of the pour, but I couldn't believe he was imagining the bright reflections to actually be objects, let alone a corpse, inside the blood. It demonstrates how little he understands about refraction or reflection, and how overactive his imagination. He'll never admit it since his whole rep is built on his creative interpretations.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
You said it best in the 'Rorschach blot' reference. Kubrick did have a love on going with what he got on the day, take wise, if he saw something interesting in it. He planned meticulously, of course, but I doubt he'd cast aside an interesting shot, simply because he hadn't planned it that way. I think this was, like you say, a happy accident. Given that Kubrick would of been in to the happy accident, I think he left it in so it would act as an ink blot, as you suggest.
IfIfsandands 1 year ago
master kubrick
MegagearS22 1 year ago
Your freeze frame from 1.32 to 1.54 shows the key difference. The reflections you mention are up and left of the highlights that are in question. Your version shows the red door reflected downwards across an almost flat area of water - the original shows a broken, static area of highlifghts that shift very slightly to the left, indicating an object that is slightly moved by the continuous gushing blood after it flops out the door. I think that satisfies the Occam's Razor approach. ...
robag88 1 year ago
@robag88 ... Not the that Occam's is a universal rule (the periodic table is more complex than previous theories).
Something else that puts your recreation into question is that in your full video version you've made the chair on the far right move in exactly the same way as the original. The chances of that happening even under an exact physical reproduction are remote, yet you've managed to do it with CG blood that flows more like treacle than water ... suggesting a rigged experiment.
robag88 1 year ago
@robag88 The chair is hand keyframed as I did not care to spend more weeks futzing with RealFlow hard dynamics when there was no reason to. But the lighting, the flow of the liquid, and the reflections that are so similar to the reflections in the actual shot are all spontaneous. If you think I faked the reflections, Lightwave is free to install the trial version. I will send you a scene and you can check for yourself.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@Xurgonic If you admit to having keyframed the chair movement then it's purely a matter of trust if you say you didn't keyframe the water as well. Personally I'm willing to give you the benefity of the doubt on that, though I still see a complete mismatch between the highlights you point out and the bulbous object in the original footage. And as i've already mentioned the treacle-like thickness of water in your video is very different to the detailed water splashing in the original vid.
robag88 1 year ago
@robag88 As I said, I'll gladly give a scene u can load & inspect yourself. My rep in the CG community also speaks for itself. There's no 'object,' only naturally occurring reflections & what may seem a bulge(?) where liquid naturally accumulates at the base of the pour. A precisely matched shape doesnt matter. The film & CG both appropriately indicate REFLECTIONS corresponding to position and colors of features of the set. U STILL ignore the red shape corresponding with the red reflection.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@robag88 Yur nitpicking. Before, you thought the highlites ARE objects (an arm, etc) but you now seem to say the shape of highlites indicate an object bulging beneath. Reflections will shift with the changing shape of the liquid having nothing to do with an object. My reflections contort very similarly without an object. A difference is the depth of my pour shape is longer. You still ignore the fact the RED 'object' on the right is the RED door reflection & the dial is reflected in the film.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@Xurgonic Nitpicking? It's strange that you go to all the effort of making CG reconstructions and posting 50 or so comments on my video over several months (frequently with unnecessary sarcasm). I see UFO sighting vids I disagree with, but I just leave a quick rating or comment then let other viewers form their own opinions, just as the description of my elevator blood vid invites the viewer to form their own opinion ...
robag88 1 year ago 2
@robag88 ... There are dozens more vids on my channel, yet you haven't commented on them as far as I can tell. I've got a 3 part vid on The Shining, showing a variety of subliminals encoded by Kubrick, and there's a huge article about The Shining on my site (inc tons of production info). Have you looked at all into the production of The Shining or Kubrick's working methods? I think you should before claiming with "1000%" certainty that there is nothing subliminal in the blood river shots.
robag88 1 year ago
@robag88 You ignore the white 'arm and torso' claimed before & now focus on the RED 'head' reflection of the RED door, U still have no answer for. Subtleties appear different due to unknowable dimension specifics. The 'broken area' is merely reflection of both doors with divider between. Why is impossible to see how reflections 'shift' in an undulating shape as pouring liquid? The door stutter causes blood to gush at varied thickness and angle. See new description in my other explanation clip.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
Excellent and convincing job. I'm so glad you produced the CG showing the blood flowing at 24 fps. I always wanted to see that and now you did it. Maybe you could take the real scene and speed that up 6 times too.. I'd love to see that
sfchris 1 year ago
@sfchris The 24fps version in this explanation video is from the real scene. The 24fps version in the CG recreation video is CG.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
Nice detective work.
kukuyeah 1 year ago
I have read the whole discussion between you and robag, but i have to stick with your story. I think people miscalculate reality when they see something in slow-motion.
The animation shows everything, its very well made, i work with 3dsMax myself so i can imagine how much effort you put in this.
Its also cool to follow this discussion because both sides know they are right for sure. Its in a way like atheism vs creatonism. Anyway, im on your side. The side thats right ;)
Cheers
Rancor1985 1 year ago
Rob doesnt claim to know he is right, but I do 1000%. He ignores & denies thorough explanation, has no logical response to many direct points or questions, & pretends the CG reflections dont exist. Yes, he projects creative meaning where there objectively is none, which IS more fun to do. But there's a difference between imaginative speculating and observing facts. He insists that if the dials resemble Danny's eyes, it MUST mean Tony is flopping out dead(?) in the blood. Quite a leap in logic.
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@Xurgonic Really? Quite a leap in logic? When I heard that there might be something in the river of blood, I immediately thought it was Tony. I'm not saying there is or there isn't, but that is the thing that would make sense the most.
vinson1445 1 year ago
@vinson If dials are Danny's eyes then assuming the door is his mouth vomiting a river of Navajo blood, the leap is presuming Tony MUST appear also. Nothing about this makes sense under scrutiny & is a vague stab at validating a misconception. See the image link in my description. Depicting Tony as a literal dead body here seems silly. Why dead or naked, how does a dead body grip anything? The elevator features clearly align as reflections in shape & color in the film. What more do you need?
Xurgonic 1 year ago
@Xurgonic If the elevators and the dial are supposed to represent Danny's face, then, IF an object comes out of the elevators (and I'm not arguing that anything does), it wouldn't be a leap in logic in the least to assume that that object isTony. To assume that it is a Native American or one of the girls is a farther stretch.
vinson1445 1 year ago