He and Lucas destroyed the art of cinema.
>>68665541
do you think he regrets being friends with Lucas now?
At least Spielberg has made good films
What do you expect from Jews?
>>68665579
>At least Spielberg has made good films
No no no. He payed people to make good films
Spielberg is a talentless idiot who got lucky enough times to make people think its not a coincidence
>>68665790
you know he payed the people to make the film because that's how he wanted the film to look, not because he's new to what movies are 60 years later.
You can make fun of Spielberg's friend Kubrick too.
>>68665873
No I like kubrick
Clockwork orange is probably the worst movie in history but he is not a bad director
I love dr strangelove. Prolly my favorite film of all time
>>68665992
Yeah well Kubrick liked Spielberg. You can blame the best directors for durning the "art" of cinema, instead of the 100's of shitty directors that made Species, and Sharknado.
>>68665541
>tfw Steven Spielberg is worshipped as a god of cinema when he literally created the entire concept of "flicks".
He deserves to burn in hell.
>>68665992
Dr. Strangelove is a piece of shit and Kubrick is a hugely overrated hack that generally appeals to people who are either young or just have a surface-level interest in film. You sound like you fit both of those roles.
Also, Spielberg is great. For proof see:
A.I.
Jaws
War of the Worlds
Catch Me if You Can
Minority Report
Bridge of Spies
The Color Purple
E.T.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Lincoln
Schindler's List
Saving Private Ryan
>>68667029
>>68665541
Lucas made some good stuff back in the days.
Spielberg really is a melodramatic faggot with "muh holocaust" and "muh antisemetism".
>>68667090
Good retort.
>>68667029
>doesn't include Spielberg's greatest movie
Pleb.
>>68667029
>Dr. Strangelove is a piece of shit
You are a disgrace to all humankind
>>68667183
which one is that? I haven't seen all his stuff yet. My favourite is A.I. though which I think is probably one of the best movies ever made.
>>68665541
Nah, those that tried to imitate Spielberg fucked things up.
Spielberg has a greater understanding of spectacle in film than almost anyone else.
Raiders and Jaws are special movies.
>>68667241
Kubrick is a hack. Eyes Wide Shut is a masterpiece and 2001 is great too. Outside of that he was pretty shite.
>>68667242
Raiders of the Lost Ark.
You're also missing Munich.
Did Star Wars fuck over George's career or did having kids did? I really would like to see him make more quality works of cinema along the likes of THX and American Graffiti again but I doubt that will happen anymore.
>>68665790
>No no no. He payed people to make good films
explain why the Duel is a good movie then
>hurr durr it's all SPIELBERG"S fault
The 70's cinema wave was already on the way out. The studios were pumping out these bloated art-house "studio" pictures made by lunatics and appealed to almost no one at the time like Sorcerer and Heaven's Gate, it was a bubble that was always going to burst. It's exactly what happened at the end of the 60's farting out expensive Old Hollywood whales like Paint Your Wagon but for the "artistic" crowd this time.
Don't blame directors, blame the 80's for being an entire decade of slick, empty art and egotistical Reagan-era capitalism gone awry. That was always going to happen with or without Spielbergo.
>>68667242
Pff more like Gay I
Jewrassic Park was better than that, but Raiders is his best
Spielberg's kind of film is dead, so I don't know what you mean.
>>68667297
Ah right. I haven't seen Munich in years, I remember liking it a lot when I did though. Does it hold up?
And I owe Raiders another view but I don't really hold Spielberg's more blockbuster-y stuff in the same regard as movies like A.I. I haven't seen Raiders in years either.
>>68667349
You sound like you have the intelligence of someone who has opinions about film that I could surely benefit from.
>>68667029
>shits all over Dr. Strangelove and the rest of Kubrick's work
>praises Spielberg's mediocre adaptation of War of the Worlds
Goddamn, you're a tasteless pleb.
>>68667300
Definitely Star Wars, its success allowed Lucas to rule his other projects with an iron fist but he's a guy who needs collaborators to rein him in and challenge him.
>>68667475
Dr. Strangelove is crap. War of the Worlds is a near-masterpiece, one that likely went over your head due to you being a young person that thinks spewing memes amounts to an argument.
>>68667275
Kubrick is great and so is Spielberg
They happen to be polar opposites in many elements of their films, especially characterization. Spielberg gets you emotionally involved, Kubrick doesn't.
Your favourite seems to be A.I., the movie he was developing with Kubrick and that he made in a very Kubrick fashion obviously as a homage to his deceased friend.
On topic: The people who ruined cinema are the people who imitated Spielberg, not Spielberg himself. Spielberg has created some of the best entertainment (this is an important word) of the 20th century.
And I bet you believe Zach Snyder is an artist right?
>>68667422
>>68667349 is true though, despite the obstreperous tone.
>>68667029
This has to be bait, Spielberg is the ultimate "generally appeals to people who are either young or just have a surface-level interest in film" director. I'll admit that a ton of Kubrick fans are entry level "film buffs" but Spielberg is one of the most normie friendly directors of all time. There are millions and millions of people out there who love Spielberg and have no interest whatsoever in film as an artistic medium.
>>68667574
Except A.I. is not made like a Kubrick film at all. Did you know that Kubrick initially wanted to wait to make the movie because he wanted David to be played by an actual, functioning robot. He also always thought Spielberg should be the one directing it because he could see (and I will give him credit for this) that the movie was far more in line with Spielberg's sensibilities. Seriously though how is A.I. at all like Kubrick except in its conception and some of its concerns? The style is nothing like a Kubrick movie.
>>68665541
Munich is p good.
>>68667526
Dr. Strangelove is a masterpiece, one that likely went over your head due to you being a young person that thinks spewing memes amounts to an argument.
>>68667496
I feel he got incredibly cocky with the prequel trilogy, people loved the previous trilogy so Lucas thought he could write any old shit and it would sell millions just because of the Star Wars name. Which it did but it also destroyed his reputation among his fans.
>>68667652
Spielberg is widely beloved but he's also a director who's films you can appreciate more as you get more into film and can recognize the level of craft involved in his best works. And his best movie was hated by the masses (A.I.).
Just because a director is accessible does in no way mean that they're bad or only for people who have a minimal interest in film. For others see: Richard Linklater, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, etc.
>>68667700
I haven't spewed any memes. I don't respond to people's comments with "muh hilarious pictures of celebrities laughing" and now just repeating what I've said.
Anyway you sound like a major dummy so I'll stop responding to you here unless you can somehow muster the effort to say something substantive, or really just say anything at all.
>>68667794
"kubrick is a hack" isn't something substantive, you just claimed Dr. Strangelove to be crap and Kubrick to be a hack and expect us to come with some counter-argument to one you never formed in the first place
Thank you OP, i've been saying this for decades.
I used to defend the early Spielberg when others called him Steven STEAL-berg.
>>68667794
"Kubrick is a hack" has been a meme on here for years. You faggots who say it never come up with a substantial argument, you just post the meme and then when people say "nuh uh" you act high and mighty even though "nuh uh" is an appropriate response to such mindless vitriol.
>>68665541
this is objectively true.
star wars episode IV was a gamechanger and singlehandedly ended the golden era of the 70s by successfully treating an adult audience like manchildren.
>>68667742
Kubrick is widely beloved but he's also a director who's films you can appreciate more as you get more into film and can recognize the level of craft involved in his best works. And his best movie was hated by the masses (Eyes Wide Shut).
Just because a director is accessible does in no way mean that they're bad or only for people who have a minimal interest in film. For others see: Richard Linklater, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, etc.
>>68668034
Dr. Strangelove has an adolescent sense of humour that is not dissimilar from that of Peter Sellers Pink Panther movies. It finds dick jokes hilarious and it relishes in simple minded slapstick humour that is easy to find funny when you're 15 perhaps. It's critique of the Cold War is pedestrian and simple-minded, it doesn't offer any interesting insights into Cold War America as it is far too busy making dick jokes.
The whole movie is a mess and it's easily one of Kubrick's worst movies. Eyes Wide Shut shows that he had greatness in him at times but it's a shame that he so rarely captured it.
>>68668169
That's not at all the case though.
Kubrick's movies appeal to young people because generally the first thing that people getting into film gravitate towards is photography. Young people can't get enough of Kubrick's symmetry and his vast canvases. It's only when you get later that you realize symmetry is for hacks and that his movies aren't cerebral, they're just emotionally vacant and uninteresting.
>>68665579
>At least Spielberg has made good films
Yes, back in the 70s.
>>68667862
Not him, but Lubrick is really nothing to write home about. If you want something more complex and well crafted from the same era, you go for Tarkovsky.
>>68668250
>It's only when you get later that you realize symmetry is for hacks and that his movies aren't cerebral, they're just emotionally vacant and uninteresting.
Do you have any argument beyond "he's a hack because I say so"?
>>68668368
Fuck off, you pretentious hippie cocksucker.
>>68668368
they are both excellent film-makers
>well known directors are hacks
>obscure directors who film their back yard for 30 minutes are great
Here, you can now leave the thread
>>68667345
If anything, blame Vietnam/Watergate for making the country cynical enough for 8 or so years to take in these serious downbeat movies in any form before they got over it.
Remember that Airport was the highest grossing film of 1970, not Little Big Man or MASH or Five Easy Pieces. Rocky far outgrossed All the President's Men and Taxi Driver. Hollywood always worked in escapism. Lucas and Spielberg just rejuvenated them and made timeless films from it
Spielberg and the new Hollywood "Movie Brats" were the only good things to come out of American cinema in the 70s and 80s.
After the bruising Vietnam and Watergate scandals America's narrative started to get cocky again with victories in the Cold War and capital growth Reaganomics. That compounded with the rise of home video drove the quality of art way down in the 80s.
>>68669489
>movement that defined the decade and changed the entire industry
>"only" good thing
Why downplay it? New Hollywood was massive, thats why its called New Hollywood and not Some Guys Made Some Movies We Sort of Like
>>68669588
sure I guess they technically owned that period.
>tfw we will never have a group like that to shake up cinema again
who can even come close.
>>68667029
>Also, Spielberg is great. For proof see:
>A.I.
into the trash it goes
Spielberg is such a fucking money grubbing Jewe. He's overrated as fuck as a director, but he literally produces hundreds of turds simply because he feels as if he doesn't have enough millions yet.
