Is this Kubrick's hidden gem?
>>63196730>hidden
>>63196730
how is it hidden? it clearly has 4 oscars, says right on the poster
Hidden ? Wut
Best Kubrick, though.
>>63196881
>>63196929
>>63196968
Because barely anybody ever brings it up on /tv/. It's always 2001, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut.
>>63197096
although i've gotten some good recommendations from this place, most of the people here are shit posting. ever seen a thread about how 2001 is garbage because it's slow or some shit. shit posters and retards abound.
>>63197096
>>63197318
>being this new.
Holy shit, newfags make me laugh. Let's not even get started on how pleb Kubrick actually is.
Glorified camera man.
>>63197360
like this fella for example
>>63196730
Slow-paced costume drama, Ryan O'Neal nearly kills it, but if you're a history buff you'll like it.
>>63197388
Isn't there an Evangelion thread you need to be making?
I assume you just watched that too.
>>63196730
anyone think >>63195522
looks like barry lyndon?
>>63197360
hipster. Why don't you talk shit about nolan instead? kubrick is actually good
what do you like?
>>63197489
>kubrick is actually good
Ha.
>what do you like?
Actual directors.
>>63197459
see how he's trying to insult me by implying i've watched a "pleb" movie recently? i don't understand these people desu senpai.
>>63197534
Plebs are ignorant after all.
>>63197522
>Actual directors.
Namedrop some of your favorites for us
>>63197575
after all what?
>>63197593
Tarkovsky, Ozu, Bergman, the list goes on..
>>63197645
This isn't me, and you're a fucking idiot for spoonfeeding the pleb. He has to develop his own taste.
>>63197671
since when is telling people directors you like spoonfeeding them? you fucking people and your secret clubs where only you know what is cool are fucking retarded.
>>63196730
>hidden
a lot of posters consider it kubrick's best.
that being said the hype for him as director is baffling to me.
His movies are good for a one time watch except for 2001 which is legitimately good.
>>63197729
>2001
>legit good
watch it once and only found the hal 9000 part interesting. However Ive seen Barry Lyndon about 5 times and Eyes Wide Shut like 3 or 4 times honestly his only good movies are those 2 and full metal jacket.
>>63197719
>you fucking people and your secret clubs where only you know what is cool are fucking retarded.
You are completely missing the point.
Of those directors he list, I've watched Bergman and Ozu, I have no interest at this time in watching Tarkovsky, because the movies he makes don't appeal to my taste.
It has nothing to do with a 'secret club' the fact you think it does just proves how much of a fucking newfag, pleb you are. Movies made by these directors appear on top 100 lists, they aren't hard to find, why the fuck would you think they are?
It's about developing your own taste, and let me tell you straight up Kubrick is pleb bait, glorified camera man. He is a great cinematographer, he's barely a fucking director though, all his movies are adaptations, he has never created and shown his own story, but variations of others.
Take it how you will, but Kubrick is definitely not a good director, and Lydon surely isn't a "hidden gem", jesus.
>>63197671
you and your intention to keep "good cinema" to yourself are pathetic. If you had any confidence in your taste you'd be willing to discuss good cinema and make others understand why they're missing out. You'd just namedrop some good old classic directors. You don't have a real taste of your own
>>63197827
No love for Dr. Strangelove? I loved that film.
>>63197837
then why is telling someone directors you like spoonfeeding a pleb? do you take film that seriously? if someone asks what kind of musicians you like do you tell them, "develop your own tastes, I don't spoonfeed newfag plebs"? you sound like a fuckin loser.
>>63198035
Not that guy. I think that the general dislike for newfags is that they assert their opinions when in many ways they have no proper basis for saying anything about film.
>>63198035
>then why is telling someone directors you like spoonfeeding a pleb?
Because then you don't develop taste of your own? Then you won't be able to argue your taste? Then you will become everything that is wrong with this board circle jerking 3x3's. Seriously fuck off and lurk more, lurking is a lost art.
>do you take film that seriously?
Yes.
> if someone asks what kind of musicians you like do you tell them, "develop your own tastes, I don't spoonfeed newfag plebs"?
Yes.
>you sound like a fuckin loser.
At least I am not a pleb.
>>63198112
>they assert their opinions when in many ways they have no proper basis for saying anything about film.
That's the name of the game when it comes to 4chan. Who here can truly say they're qualified to say anything about film?
>>63198182
At least proper cinefags have varied opinions
>>63198133
>>63198112
not op. jumped in when >>63198133 bitched at another anon for naming off directors he liked, chastising him for "spoonfeeding the pleb" my point was, telling someone, "i like X's work" is not spoonfeeding. it's how you learn about things. also, i think kubrick is quite good. you have sperged out into your newfag pleb nonsense you always do.
>>63198280
>"i like X's work" is not spoonfeeding.
That's explicitly spoonfeeding.
Typical response, has nothing to do with subjective opinion of the viewer, just listing off directors they have watched as they think watching obscure directors somehow validates their opinion.
I would have happily listed of directors, had you also asked for my subjective opinion on said directors. Had the OP given ANY reasoning as to why HE liked the movie, not some parroted response he picked up from here or elsewhere.
You all missed the point, you're all literal plebs. You all need to develop YOUR OWN TASTE and it shouldn't be on me to give that to you.
>>63198351
LOL i forget sometimes what i i'm dealing with. thanks for the reminder.
>>63198412
>A true patrician
No worries. Now at least you know how to become one.
>>63198351
>Had the OP given ANY reasoning as to why HE liked the movie, not some parroted response he picked up from here or elsewhere.
Me, and probably a lot of other people like me, have a very hard time describing what it is they like about something. Either that, or they can only say things like "I liked the scenes that were shot in candlelight". Do you want people to have a real depth of knowledge when it comes to film? And be able to articulate their thoughts clearly? Or is it not wrong to only type a simple sentence about what you did or did not like, because that's really all you can hope for.
>>63198443
wow
>>63198460
>I can't articulate my thoughts
Jesus fuck, that's literally a pleb thing. Jesus fucking Christ read a fucking book you absolute plebeian.
Do you think ANYONE knows how to properly articulate their thoughts without first learning how t do so?
Holy fuck.
>>63198460
>I don't know why I liked it, I just did xD
>I'm not a pleb
>>63198351
are you retarded? OP just called it a hidden gem. In general Barry Lyndon is not a hidden gem and is actually praised by your average /tv/ poster or film nerd. In that case OP is misinformed but you attacked every one in this thread for liking kubrick in general and no knowing more obscure directors which in itself is a parroted response of someone who wants to feel like theyre better than others.
>>63198635
>missing the point this hard
Literally did the opposite, bruv.You're a newfag too. Plain and simple, you are not going to understand this but what I am doing is literally good for the board. OP and everyone else will now think before they post, they will attempt to develop their taste and they won't make another fucking Kubrick thread which pops up every fucking day.Let me assure you the people spamming star wars and cunny threads have better taste and have seen more films than majority of the people who use this board.Maybe not cunny, but the point remains.
You all need to lurk more, I lurked for years before I started posting, not even fucking joking. And I can proudly say I am not a pleb.
You can literally go to reddit if you want to circle jerk pseudo intellectual discussion.
>>63198754
i'm in awe
>>63198811
Realising how much of a pleb you are is a truly eye opening experience.
>>63198839
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zQAYTbKVfs
>>63198754
>literally
Oh i see youre just trying to troll now with memes cause it what oldfags do amirite?haha
>>63198870
>he's still going
>he thinks being a meme poster in any way validates or invalidates what I am saying.
You know you could refute what I am saying with reasoning and logic, but good luck with that as mine is pretty sound.
Just remember to make your Eva thread tomorrow and I will be there to BTFO you again.
>>63198914
i seriously like you. i disagree with your thesis but i like your methods
>>63197837
>he has never created and shown his own story
Kubrick's not a good director because he's not a writer? What?
>>63198941
>i disagree with your thesis
So refute it.
>>63198957
so you can only talk about films till you discovered a true hidden gem director that kubrick fans never heard about?
>>63198948
>Kubrick's not a good director because he's not a writer? What?
Yes. A good director should be able to create his own story. But you would then need to know actual good directors in order to understand this.
A few have been listed in this thread. Kubrick is not one of them.
>>63198754
>lurk moar
>see im an oldfag
bet you started coming here in 2014
>>63198503
Usually I disagree with pleb name calling but right now you are very right
>this thread
Posting from my iPhone just to say that you sperglords arguing over hipster directors for cool points phone are displaying top tier autism
>>63198989
>so you can only talk about films till you discovered a true hidden gem director that kubrick fans never heard about?
Lol, no. You can talk about films when you understand them, calling Kubricks "Barry Lyndon" shows a huge misunderstanding of the film industry and you really have no right to even attempt to discuss it with true patricians, hence: lurk more. There will be a thread tomorrow about this very same topic, I can assure you that.
>>63198503
>>63198549
>>63199060
Elitist, oppressive assholes.
>>63199100
>calling Kubricks "Barry Lyndon" a hidden gem*
>>63197096
>>63197360
Really though, it's when people here started talking about Barry Lindon that made me pick it up once I found out it was by Kubrick
I don't know how I managed to miss it, it really is a hidden gem
>>63199047
naw man that just makes those directors good writers as well
>>63199118
>Opressive
Back to tumblr you go
>>63198957
it's a matter of opinion. i think it's a good thing to ask other people who watch movies what they like. it's how i learned about 99% of the things i've seen. why do you think trailers are so successful. people have to hear that a movie exists before they know to watch it. and with so many in existence, it's nice to get recommendations from people have similar taste. and as much as i hate to admit, 4channers generally have decent taste in movies. you're a patrician, you know. sonatine for example. i'd never heard of it. i don't know anyone irl who watches japanese cinema. know i watch all i can find. there's so much of i like to hear about what others think is really good to narrow it down. get it?
>>63199127
t's discussed here almost daily.
>>63199083
nice iphone faggot. i hope some 7 foot nigger knocks you the fuck out and takes it.
>>63199144
*now
and a couple other things
>>63199132
No it makes them good directors, and bunching in a glorified camera man with them greatly evaluates the work of directors with immense skill in their craft.
When Directors such as Teshigahara, Ozu and Hitchcock exist, how can you call Kubrick good? He's simply sub-par.
Kubrick is pleb bait.
>>63196730
would you rather be known as a cUckold or a fool?
>>63199100
thats exactly the point i said here >>63198635
however there was no need to dis kubrick and show off your master patrician taste by naming lesser known directors
>>63199144
>there's so much of i like to hear about what others think is really good to narrow it down. get it?
No, I don't. You can google "movies like Sonatine" and you will get recommendations + more in that same vein of movie.
Dolls is easily Kitano's best.
>>63199224
>name dropping
tell how did you discover those directors?
>>63197837
>It's about developing your own taste
I will say that I agree with the general idea that trying to establish a canon of objectively "good" films and/or filmmakers does a disservice to discussion. Somebody that watches a film with the preconception that the film is supposed to be amazing will make that person less likely to come out with their own genuine take on the film. However, at the same time, it can be helpful to steer people in a direction towards things they may like, and not get so caught up in what is "good" and "bad". I think it's much more useful to categorize films in terms of aspects a viewer might be interested in, rather than by any kind of objective quality.
>>63199047
>A good director should be able to create his own story.
I disagree. The ability to create their own vision (and then see it through) is entirely separate from being able to fully realize somebody else's vision.
>>63196730
It's among Kubrick's best 3
>>63199270
>however there was no need to dis kubrick and show off your master patrician taste by naming lesser known directors
I haven't named any 'lesser known directors' though. Except maybe one.
Thinking Ozu or Bergman is lesser known than Kubrick is everything wrong with this board, see how much of a pleb you are?
> "I believe Ingmar Bergman, Vittorio De Sica and Federico Fellini are the only three filmmakers in the world who are not just artistic opportunists. By this I mean they don’t just sit and wait for a good story to come along and then make it. They have a point of view which is expressed over and over and over again in their films, and they themselves write or have original material written for them."
that's Kubrick, on Bergman. This is the important part.
>and they themselves write or have original material written for them
Kubrick knew how much of a pleb he was.
>>63199339
>tell how did you discover those directors?
Literally google. And pop references inside other shows and movies.
I am a sucker for the source of things.
>inb4 it's the same thing
No, /tv/ is not a recommendation machine.
>>63199314
see, you seem to know more about cimena that i do. you say this is Kitano's best. I have recently come to like Kitano myself. Starting with Battle Royal a long time ago, then again recently with Sonatine and Zatoichi. Everything I've seen of his so far I've enjoyed. Now I will try to find Dolls because you feel it's his best. See how that works?
>>63199385
tell me how did you learn bout these directors? cause its probably safe to assume it was thru word of mouth.
Man I watched Barry Lyndon a few weeks ago with a bottle of whiskey and a bag of pot and it was a pretty sweeping experience.
>>63199442
>tv is not a recomendation machine
for some ppl it is
>>63199348
>I think it's much more useful to categorize films in terms of aspects a viewer might be interested in,
This is my point though, listing off directors devaluates this skill. Go into a 3x3 and ask ANYONE why they liked the movies on their 3x3, the preceding answer will be a generally accepted parroted response copied straight from IMDB. NO ONE thinks for themselves as they don't look for movies which would interest them. This is my point.
>I disagree. The ability to create their own vision (and then see it through) is entirely separate from being able to fully realize somebody else's vision.
Good directors can do both, Kubrick ONLY made others stories.
>>63199385
Kubrick has an opinion and you are just aping it, how about you develop your own opinions?
The critits at Cahiers du cinema who went on to be the french new wave love directors like Hawks and Huston who had to work inside the studio system making films they didn't write and had little say over. It's where the idea of auteur cinema even originated in the first place, the idea that a director's personal style can show through the parts of the film foisted on him by outside influences, and that the personal style was what made the film good, not necessarily the story or whatever.
>>63199546
tell me do you like 2001?
>>63199455
>Now I will try to find Dolls because you feel it's his best. See how that works?
And now you are going into the movie with thoughts about the movie and expections, I shouldn't have recommended dolls.
If you like Kitano you can do the research yourself.
>>63199461
See >>63199442
>>63199522
And that ruins this board. Go look at /a/, with an unbiased view. There is discussion everywhere, and it's pretty indepth if you understand the medium.
Rec threads are banned and the people making them get banned, it's enforced by the board users. They actually have taste and argue it fervently, regardless of how you feel about the actual material.
I wish I had known you were an anime dork before I read all this shit. Yikes, as they say.
>>63199596
>go to /a/
D R O P P E D
>>63199574
>tell me do you like 2001?
Fuck no, I feel asleep when he was flying through space. I don't think I actually like any Kubrick film.
>and that the personal style was what made the film good, not necessarily the story or whatever.
This is all well and good, and it simply means you like Kubrick on a subjective level.
But there is no way you can group Kubrick in with 'good' directors. Because it's literally comparing say 2001 and Tokyo story. Or Lyndon and Seventh Seal, Lolita and Ran.
He is simply not good. As good directors are on another level. You can like him, but don't say he is good. That's pleb bait.
>>63199667
>unable to look at something with an unbiased view
>he thinks he has an opinion
>>63199679
but that is your OPINION what dont you understand about that
>>63199596
first guy you replied to
i do know what you mean. i watched Borgman the other day. I had absolutely no idea what it was about. It was a movie that would have been ruined had someone told me what it was about. I take your point but you can always just say whether it was good or not or whether you liked it or not without details. Like you said Dolls, the only expectation I have is that it will be good.
>>63199546
>NO ONE thinks for themselves as they don't look for movies which would interest them. This is my point.
And I would say that I mostly agree with that. But, there's a balance in trying to find "the good stuff". One could decide to never be swayed by the opinions of others, and watch all films at face value, then decide for themselves. In a perfect world, if we all had the time to do that, we would. But we don't. At some point people need to look at what other people like and say "Hey, maybe I'll check this out".
>>63199546
>Good directors can do both
I think it's more accurate to talk in terms of skill as an overall filmmaker. If you were to replace "director" with "filmmaker" in your arguments, I might be more inclined to agree.
>>63199706
>things weebs say
When you stop liking children's cartoons we can have a real discussion.
you think this guys bad now, wait till he starts telling you what a revelation satoshi kon was
>>63199749
>but that is your OPINION what dont you understand about that
There is an objective and subjective level in art. Kubrick quite simply doesn't match the objective quality of other renowned directors.
>>63199751
>the only expectation I have is that it will be good.
And this is wrong, movies are best enjoyed when you have 0 expectations. The only reason I liked dolls was because I knew nothing about it an was blown away when I watched it. Who knows if you will have the same experience?
For all I know tomorrow there will be a thread along the lines of
>WHICH ANON RECOMMENDED ME THIS PIECE OF SHIT GARBAGE THIS WHAT YOU FAGGOTS LIKE RAH RAH RAH
It's a discussion board, not a rec board.
>>63199849
now i expect to be blown away
HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FIND FILMS TO WATCH IF WE AREN'T LOOKING AT LISTS OR GETTING DIRECT RECS?
Am I just supposed to look at a big list of films released in a certain year and pick one by the title alone?
>>63199941
that is what i've been doing. i've gotten some serious heat trying to find movies to watch here.
>>63199941
Try the Cahiers Du Cinema or Sight and Sound top films by decade, and the They Shoot Pictures list.
>>63199798
But the actual content in said medium is beside the point, I made that perfectly clear when I made my post, it's you who needs to drop your bias and look at the bigger picture.
I am telling you to look at /a/, not anime. The state of the board, not what they are arguing about. It's okay, pleb, you will learn someday.
>>63199793
>"filmmaker"
But that's a producer, isn't it? This is how I see it, I would rather watch a director who is showing his own view on a topic, not a director who is attempting to show someone elses view on something, or his own view of something someone else is talking about,m if that makes sense.
If I wanted to get 2001's story I would read the book, why would I watch Kubrick? His cinematography isn't THAT great that I would spend hours on something when I am not even going to get the authors intent.
>One could decide to never be swayed by the opinions of others, and watch all films at face value, then decide for themselves. In a perfect world, if we all had the time to do that, we would. But we don't. At some point people need to look at what other people like and say "Hey, maybe I'll check this out".
But that's the thing, once you develop your own taste it becomes extremely easy to find movies you want to watch, as you know what you like. You are not hoping you can find another good movie listed by some anon who doesn't even know why he liked it.
>>63199966
>that is what i've been doing
Looking at a big list sorted by release date?
>i've gotten some serious heat trying to find movies to watch here
Asking for recs, you mean?
>>63199941
>Am I just supposed to look at a big list of films released in a certain year and pick one by the title alone?
Read a synopsis of a movie and see if the story interests you? Pick other movies you have seen and enjoyed and google "movies like x". It's not hard.
>>63200027
But won't the autist in this thread have a problem with that? I want to know exactly how he decides what to watch.
>>63200079
See: >>63200085
>>63200085
>I want to know exactly how he decides what to watch.
I developed my own tastes using the methods outlined >>63200079 and >>63199442
>>63197645
>>63197671
>not realizing you're being mocked
>>63197360
>>63197837
>directors should write their own movies
>le glorified cameraman
This sounds awfully familiar. Aren't you that faggot that goes into Kubrick threads and jacks them with his retarded opinions? You realize 70% of the posts in this thread are yours, right? You seem to think you fit in because you're acting like an elitist asshole and telling people to "lurk moar" but the whole flow of this conversation suggests otherwise. I think Kubrick is overrated as shit and even I think you're a pathetic clown. Please stop shitting up the board and make something of yourself.
t. mom
>>63200085
I don't give a fuck about him. Every single film on the TSPDT list is mentioned on /tv/ at some point, all the usual suspects that come up here, and MANY many more that are never brought up that are just as good as say, Barry lyndon for example.
>>63200158
You can also google "classic movies" and you get pic related, again it's not hard, at all.
>>63200177
>ad hom
Nice.
>>63200177
>not realizing you're being mocked
You're correct. Funny that he didn't realize it, though.
>>63200158
>>63200216
I just don't understand what your point is, then. Are you saying recommendations are bad? If so, what makes those lists okay?
>>63200056
>Looking at a big list sorted by release date?
yeah pretty much. oscar winners... looking at at 100 lists 'n such. i did a "100 best Russian/French/German/etc... and picked out things I thought looked interesting.
>Asking for recs, you mean?
I've never started a thread in /tv/. but yeah I've jumped into discussions about films and been bitched at. mostly foreign shit. I know next to nothing about foreign films so it's an opportunity for people in the know to make themselves feel better by knowing more. it only gets ridiculous when they get upset and start with the name calling. I don't speak in memes like newfag and pleb/patrician and kek and all the other bullshit but they do describe perfectly certain things. so i will use autistic. people become autistic when you talk about art. especially shit they consider "high art".
>15 min block for NWS on WS Board
i guess making your fingers look like they're jacking off is too edgy for 4chan
>>63200636
I am saying asking for recommendation or at least expecting them HERE ON 4CHAN degradates the entirety of the board, it creates clones who circle jerk pop opinion and we now have an army of retards.
This is besides my original point though, that being that OP is a pleb.
>>63200533
>thinking anonymous plebs on the internet are able to insult me
>thinking ad him refutes relevant and logical points
>talking about me to avoid talking to me
:^)
Nothing sadder, desu.
>>63200681
>>15 min block for NWS on WS Board
Lol, you are going to get a 3day. Can always evade.
>>63200681
Okay, we find out about films basically the same way. As far as lists go, I find that Letterboxd has a lot of helpful ones.
>i guess making your fingers look like they're jacking off is too edgy for 4chan
Hilarious; I saw that. Ridiculous reason to get b&, though.
>>63200752
>I am saying asking for recommendation or at least expecting them HERE ON 4CHAN degradates the entirety of the board, it creates clones who circle jerk pop opinion and we now have an army of retards.
I see what you're saying. /mu/ is a really good example of a board so consumed by circlejerking a few albums/artists to the point of death. And yes, /a/ is an excellent example of users that self-moderate and tell people to fuck off when they start threads asking for recs.
>OP is a pleb.
Rude; I am OP.
>>63200880
>Rude; I am OP.
But that was my first point against you.
It's hard not to be condescending in this place, but you can't say this was a bad thread, eh? Compared to all the other circle jerking going on.
>>63200954
It seems like I'm more likely to get replies in a thread with a simple opener, like "What does /tv/ think of this?", or some other broad question then to actually take the time to write about what I felt about the film I'm posting. Really, I just want to know what other /tv/ users think about a certain film I've seen, and usually a meme opener or something similarly short gets the most replies and discussion.
>>63201170
Because, for lack of a better word, 'we' are not tricked when people use pseudo intellectual terms to describe a movie, then in that same post ask for other movies, the level of intellect which the language implies mean you should be able to find movies on your own.
All the discussion happens in between the shit posting. That's what makes 4chan great, honestly love it or leave it.
>>63201324
Exactly. If you don't like being trolled, go back to reddit.
I was honestly bored the first time I watched it.
After I watched it again I really appreciated it more.
EPILOGUE
IT WAS IN THE REIGN OF ONYANGO OBAMA III THAT THE AFORESAID PERSONAGES LIVED AND QUARRELED AND SHITPOSTED ON /TV/;
GOOD OR BAD, HANDSOME OR UGLY, RICH OR POOR
THEY ARE ALL EQUAL NOW
Technically stunning film, but felt like watching paint dry.
>>63202117
About Schmidt makes me feel like I'm watching paint dry.
