It was Danny who unlocked the door letting Jack out?
Never heard this theory before. At 28:08
https://youtu.be/gDQcT36tLeg?si=uJ4Qv_KLr6Q1UP5e&t=1688
Never heard this theory before. At 28:08
https://youtu.be/gDQcT36tLeg?si=uJ4Qv_KLr6Q1UP5e&t=1688
It’s a stupid theory. The entire video that is, not just this one instance.
Jack is talking directly to Grady in that scene. The ghosts have become strong enough by that point that they could physically interact with the world and free Jack. The evidence is this is the woman in 237 cause bruises on Danny.
I felt the same way about this presentation. I had it running in the background while surfing and him saying it was Danny caught my attention. Never heard this possibility before. So while I gave the vid a thumbs down I did get something out of it to think about.
shareI've heard the theory he let him out, but not this version. He still isn't the one that let him out, he was up in the apartment with Wendy.
The ghosts let him out. We are shown Halloran and Danny using telepathy earlier in the film where there is absolutely no ambiguity about that supernatural event happening. And Halloran talks about the ghosts, referring to them as burnt toast. So I'm not sure why people fight the idea that the ghosts are real. If people are reading minds then it's a supernatural film and there is no reason the ghosts we are shown would be meant to be interpreted as someone hallucinating.
I know. Halloran's and Danny's ESP. The Grady Twins seen by Danny. Delbert Grady, Lloyd, and the ballroom ghosts all seen by Jack. The room 237 woman, seen by Jack and Danny both. The ghosts and apparitions Wendy sees in the movie's final act. Grady conversing with Jack just before Jack was let out of the storeroom. There are all kinds of things that make it clear that this is not all just psychosis on Jack's part.
As I've said before, I'm just exasperated by people coming up with theories like this, because A) they're really overthinking things, B) they're flat out ignoring the things that don't fit their pet theory, and C) they have to do some pretty extreme mental gymnastics to justify the theory with the on screen evidence they've decided they will accept instead of ignoring.
I've always had little patience with that sort of thing, because it's intellectually sloppy, or even dishonest. A theory has to account for all the facts, if it doesn't, it's a bad theory, and it's stupid to defend it. The smart thing, the intellectually honest thing is to come up with a better theory.
I posit the theory that he was never in. The whole thing was a supernatural mindfuck, just like Jack sitting at the bar.
shareHonestly, theories like this, and like "Bruce was really dead at the end of 'The Dark Knight Rises' and Alfred was just daydreaming," or "John Mason from 'The Rock' is actually James Bond," just make me roll my eyes. They are a testament to the fact that some people just overthink the shit out of some things. And it wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact that for all these theories to be valid, the holder of said theory has to studiously cherry pick the evidence on screen he'll accept, and ignore anything (and there always are things) that flat out negate that interpretation of the film.
shareYes, a complete failure to apply Occam’s razor.
share