💖💖💖

They make you do that for even a check up! I don't know about the sex abuse hypothesis but I think Kubrick wanted us to be guessing...

@@Angelenowithacamera yeah I guess. Do you think he had underwear on though or no?

Captain Kane from Campus Security!

Tony is danny, its his shine. Anthony or "tony" is danny's middle name

@@eriktruchinskas3747I know that Tony is just Danny's shine personified, but I was just noting how creepy he came off in the movie with the wagging finger and gravelly voice. And while he ultimately IS Danny, he acts as his own entity. "Danny isn't here right now Mrs. Torrence."

@MelancoliaI yeah it was hella creepy, in the book his adult self appeared to him instead or at least it looks like himself but as an adult

​@@eriktruchinskas3747 Tony is actually middle-schooler Danny sending telepathic visions to himself in the past, to better survive with the supernatural horrors of Overlook and his alcoholic father slowly going mad. This is strongly hinted in the epilogue of "The Shining" (novel) where the reader is given a glimpse of Danny's jr highschool graduation and we learn that his middle name is Anthony

​@@eriktruchinskas3747 It's suppose to be ~14yo Danny but I suppose they used adult actor for "Tony" in that one scene

The book is better. The film is a disgrace it changed the whole dynamic of the book and the ending where the hotel blows up…… read the book it’s soo much better

@@jordanmckee4970 That is usually the case when comparing films to the books they are based on. For some reason I have never read the book but I have heard Stephen King criticise the film. Then again he dislikes pretty much all movie adaptations of his novels. Solely as a movie I really enjoy Kubrick's version.

@@poppycock31185 there’s a reason why king dislikes all of the movies. Because they miss out so much of what’s in the books. I urge you to read the shining it’s absolutely incredible until then Then you can come up with an actually analytical review of the two

@@jordanmckee4970 I've read a lot of Kings books and I can see why he often feels that way. I definitely will read The Shining one day. What did you think of the new It films? I prefer the TV movie version.

It's definitely one of those films where you can discover new things when you watch it again. One reason why I think the movie is so great. The subtle things.

You make some good points but I am assuming his pants were off because he probably wet himself during his “ seizure” The bear thing is interesting though since that super odd scene during the last 10 mins is that bear suit person on the bed with a ghost.

I was also thinking Tony is what his father calls his Pen*s to get away with abusing his son. If the child calls it a Tony.....the psychologist can only assume its an imaginary friend. Also the part when he said he's wet an lives in my mouth.....then hides in his stomach

​@@katek9864 These are good theories but they apply only to Kubrick's movie as in the book the person in animal suit pleasuring the hotel owner is dressed in dog costume. Also, in the novels (both The Shining and it's sequel Doctor Sleep) we go so deep into Daniel's mind and memories that if King intended Danny to be abused by Jack also sexually, the reader would get at least a little hint about that. But no, nothing in the novels hint to sexual abuse, only to "typical" physical abuse from Jack. The bear costume can also be a hint to the novel "All My Father's Hotels" where one of the female chaeacters dress often in bear costume. But the intercourse in that book/movie is lesbian of nature. I think Danny is pantless in that scene because he had not dress yet before brushing his teeth and the "plushie bear is connected to the character dressed as bear" is coincidental. ...or is anything coincidental in Kubrick's movies? 🤔

But bet Kubrick put two different story lines there on purpose.

Interesting observations, and you may be onto something. I recall that the Overlook was said to have been built on a historic Native American burial ground, if I'm correct in my recollection, and so that definitely plays into your theory. This was back when films of this type were intentionally left a bit vague, inviting the viewer to come to his or her own conclusions, like those you came to. (Nowadays, audiences demand that everything be spelled out explicitly for them.)

No, this isn’t really about revenge of Native Americans or race at all. Wendy acts in self defense once Jack has completely broken down and tries to kill both her and Danny. She was 100% supportive of Jack and failed to see the harm he was causing to their son even before they entered that hotel. She had to have Jack spell it out for her that he lost his mind. It was Danny who saved himself in the end though.

If i remember correctly it's right after Danny gets a vision in front of the mirror of the overlook hotel

Mikä on mikä?

That ain't right!

actually, it's not a theory! it's never explained in the movie, but in the novel tony speaks to danny and reveals that he is danny's future self!

I used to think Tony was an angel of death or guardian angel

He was future Danny in the book.

​@@ellabella2805 Yup, "Tony" is ~14yo Danny who sends telepathic visions to himself in the past for guidance.

@@ellabella2805 I nee to read the book. Yes that explains it. glad you brought it up!

Danny also wears a Mickey jumper

They're just different companies who both happen to animate cartoon characters. There's probably little to no legal - OR business ramifications - for showing one's creations in another's production. [Now I'm not going to be able to get that out of my head].

Great comment! I've long held that molestation is at the heart of Danny's dysfunction, but never entertained the idea that Jack is the one with the shining ability. The scene with Torrance in the kitchen undermines your argument, I think. The sequel confirms that King intended for Danny to be the source. Kubrick's interpretation is another thing altogether.

@@qebler17 The Kitchen scene Chef Halloran shines to Danny by asking him if he likes Ice Cream. Anyone can receive the message from someone who shines but can not respond unless they also have the gift. Danny never responds to him by shining and Danny asking about 137 was not him shining but what he learned from the hotel shining to him.. Also the visions/ghosts of the hotel can shine to people as shown throughout the movie but only people who shine can respond. Jack is the only one who ever interacts/talks to them. As far as the contacting Halloran in Miami he was only contacted during the Jack encounter with the lady in 237 and not when Danny was attacked. The whole scene of Jack checking 237 was a sexual/horrific dream Jack had expressing the horror he put his son thru. He was the one who attacked his son in a violent and sexual nature in room 237. Since this dream was from his sons perspective he most likely shined for help also in his dream. Just my theory. Got to go I've worn out the S.H.I.N.I.N.G keys on my keyboard.

@@jcarlovitch compelling argument! Easy on the keys tho :D

@@qebler17 Almost forgot the most important evidence Danny can not shine. The whole conversation between Jack and the vision of the other care taker in the bathroom scene. They have a long conversation and Grady tells him his son has a great gift and is trying to use that gift against him by contacting a cook. I believe that to be a lie based on the fact that every thing else he told Jack was a lie. He confirms to Jack he is Grady "Grady Grady sir. That's right Delbert Grady" this is a lie when explaining to Jack early on about the incident the Hotel Manager clearly refers to him Charles Grady. Jack asks Haven't I seen you some where. Grady responds No sir i don't believe so another lie the Grady surely knows Jack saw him in the Hotel scrapbook. Jack asks weren't you the caretaker. Grady denies another lie. Jack asks you a married man. Grady yes i have a wife and kids. This is a very subtle lie he does not have a wife and two daughters he had a wife and two daughters. Jack asks where are they Grady responds they are around here somewhere I'm not sure at the moment. Another lie they are not around they are dead. Jack than accuses him of killing his wife and kids Grady claims no recollection of that another lie. Grady then explains Danny's gift which is what i believe to be a lie. He tells Jack You are the caretaker you have always been the care taker an obvious lie. He claims his daughter stole matches and tried to burn the hotel down which one can safely assume is a lie just like the accusation he is making about Jacks child attempting to contact someone and being a very naughty boy. Finally his admitting to "Correcting " his wife and kids is a lie by omission, he did not correct them he killed them.

I think he was being molested cause he might be the adopted kid, parents are brunette and child is somewhat darker blonde.

Those who have read the book know this 👍🏽

Are all references to Tony removed?

Spill the tea sis Actually the film has three versions. 2 hrs 26 minutes for the premire version(Its rarely available) 2 hrs 23 minutes for US version (I own it, and it is easy to get) 1 hr 59 minutes (European version, as u can see the duration, it's an insignificant one)

@@CinemaMylifeYes holy shit! I've only seen the European version, but I also have the US versions but as a stealbook so I didn't wanna open it up, but now I'll have to, I didn't know it was such a drastic difference!

Because in the version I've watched of this scene( not this one, notice there is only half a doorway in the shot of this video), you are able to see Tony standing in the lower left portion of the doorway as an apparition. In my opinion, it's ten seconds of film that proves there is an evil supernatural element to this story that Kubrick wanted to convey to those who noticed it, with no explanation that can correspond to logic, or reason thus adding to the anxiety this film generates. The editing you speak of in my opinion, is done to further suggest that a genius of God given talent such as Kubrick was an atheist, when the attitude of his film making suggests a spiritual agnosticism, that is well aware of evil. However, I cannot begin to speculate as to why the powers that be, would want to suggest that to us. Maybe they are poking fun at him while he's dead, because he certainly poked fun at them while he was alive.

@@paulholman2841 Will check to see if that's more visible in a widescreen format!

Nope. Nor was Danny molested.

@@nofriendzjustaname9337 Tony is the result of a trauma. Do you really believe in ghosts? If so, your eyes are really wide shut.

@@gilliatt82 I don't believe in ghosts, but this movie is about ghosts, anything further is just projecting.

@@gilliatt82 you're an idiot LOL

@Dirty Dan Speculation suggests, that the bear's eyes were "shaped" like that to add to the horror effect. Apparently, there _was_ actually a bear shaped mat that was sold exactly like this object at the time (late '70s), but the eyes were round, not shrivelled. The shaping of the eyes in this distorted fashion, plays in to the subconscious of the viewer, that things "aren't right".

Tony is a little boy that lives in his mouth

And hides in his stomach

'70s psychology.

Well she didn’t know that and she was probably worried he might have another black out so she wanted him to stay in bed

Most likely the doctor thinks Danny had random epileptic episode, and in case he gets another one, it's better for him to lay down and rest as the second seizure might be worse than the first one which was just a "blackout"

@@mrj.kottari8453 wonder if he actually stayed in bed all day. Do you think he did?

Double -life?

@ Wolf Howls tomska ?

Lise Harrus Yes! I love Tomska!

@@wolfhowls233 me too, the beeeeest 😍

I'm so friggin happy there is another big fan of him.

@@wolfhowls233 especially under a video of Shining... x) Sorry for my english, I'm French and English is so difficult :')

No, sir. I thought I was insane for doing it. Lol. I'm happy to see it's a shared insanity.

I'm not generally into horror, but I would think that horror and suspense films are full of soft quiet voices (as odd as that sounds).

The doctor therapist woman in this scene has such a nice soothing voice like ASMR!

No it wouldn't have been. This was before they went to the hotel

She was probably giving him a physical examination since she is a doctor

@@soulpinkendeavors If you aren't aware, some dumb and impressionable fans think Jack molested Danny, cus of a fan theory that I find to be a huge stretch. Most likely anyone who see themes of child molestation is merely projecting themselves onto the movie.

@@nofriendzjustaname9337 Why is it dumb? There seem to be a lot of hints (and I'm not talking about Danny's rocket sweater). This scene about Tony being in Danny's mouth doesn't make sense, or his pants off, or the overlays of the elevator with Danny screaming, etc.

@@TheKnoxvicious Cuz those are what pedos would assume, cuz it's what they want. Doctors used to make house calls, kids didn't wear pants in bed and Tony is literally Danny from the future.

@@nofriendzjustaname9337 Tony is Danny from the future in the books, that's confirmed - but what is this thing about pedos being the only ones to assume that? The dialogue is what's stranger than the no pants thing plus the mag article

As is the mother’s voice