Was this intentional?

>>81775767
>any kubrick film ever
>"was this intentional"

The answer is almost 99% likely to be YES.

File: IMG_2226.jpg (168KB, 680x478px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 680x478px

>>81775803
Was this intentional?

>>81775937

not visible in correct aspect ratio

>>81775767
>any kubrick film ever
>"was this intentional"
The answer is almost 99% likely to be RETARDED FANS CAME UP WITH THIS.

Was the autist who was obsessed with every fine detail in his film intentional about some obvious symbolism

Probs lol

File: cia.png (411KB, 1000x418px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1000x418px

Was this intentional

>>81775937
Bravo, Kubrick.

>>81775767
the real question is why is jack even on a picture from the 20's

Everything Kubrick did was intentional -- including any "mistakes [I say "mistakes" because if it's intentional, it cannot be a mistake].

Every interpretation of Kubrick is correct and he was, in fact, killed due to poisoning members of the illuminati for not releasing the undoctored moon-landing footage.

>>81775767
testing 123

Short answer: Yes, Kubrick only did things to amuse himself. According to R Lee Emmy, Kubrick could give a fuck what you thought his intentions were

>>81776660
He was absorbed by the hotel because of his descent into evil.

>>81776994
But why did it send him back in time

>>81777040
To protect Naxmilian Connor II, Sarah Connors grand father

>>81776994
But why was he on a picture he had no business being on instead of a ghost. We already know that there are ghosts in the hotel.

>>81777040
>But why did it send him back in time
it didnt

>>81775767
>Was this intentional?

It's one of Kubrick's alteration of the souce material. It makes perfect sense if you read it beforehand.

>>81777842
It was just a representation of him becoming one with the hotel. It would have been stupid to show him as a ghost at the end.

>>81776086
And which one is that?

Is that a young Jack Nicholson in the front center on the left pic?