Why is /tv/ so divided on this guy?
>>70667000
237 layers of ironic shitposting have left /tv/ confused about how they really feel
mainly the jew thing
>>70667000
no one on /tv/ is confused.
troll posting isn't the same as authentic posting.
Cause hes a really good director. And its cool to be a contrarian on here.
>>70667000
Because people discovered he stole most his 2001 imagery from a japanese film.
>>70667000
he's a really overrated director.not even top 20.
Literal meme director
I think he's a really good director, but not all of his films are very good.
People think he's a top director because he does autistic shit like reshoot a scene 150 times.
>>70667000
he was the tarantino of his generation.
that's all you need to know...
/tv/ loves kubrick but /tv/ loves shitposting more, why is why they seem divided on him
>>70667149
?????
>>70667000
he's good but entry level.
redditors love him because they haven't been exposed to more film
>>70667000
Because Tarkovsky exists
>>70667228
>>70667000
Because film enthusiasts who are elitist in their taste and film enthusiasts who are open to mainstream cinema will never see eye to eye on anything as long as the medium exists.
>>70667235
/thread.
also malick
people getting into film watch his stuff first and tend to stick to denoting him as being the best director/their favorite director without going the step further. Often people who don't watch many movies or know much about the history of movies coin kubrick as being the best director of all time
that's no reason to hate kubrick, but that's probably one of the underlying reasons why he's easy bait on here
>>70667235
fucking tark-fags can't shut up about their king.
If you think mirror is his best work you're part of the problem.
>>70667216
>/tv/ loves kubrick
piss off redditor.
the only director /tv/ loves is malick
>>70667293
And then there are people who have gone deep down the rabbit hole of film and still find several of Kubrick's films to be the best of all time.
>>70667235
meh
>>70667255
There's a lot more comparisons too in addition to this.
>>70667310
and George Lucas
>>70667337
Kubrick, like several other directors labeled as entry level around here, is worth repeat viewings.
Because every single 4chan media related board equates entry level with being bad. All of them do it.
>>70667337
you need to watch more film then
>>70667337
and those people aren't wrong. it's just that someone praising kubrick is often times new to film. it isn't a bad thing, but when it's posted here /tv/ takes on an ironic persona of elitism and it's an easy target
>>70667255
Why does he get away with this? He never even credited Road to the Stars IIRC.
>>70667235
>Tarovsky
shit taste, you should probably kill youself
>>70667477
He died before he could get found out by the internet at large and take the heat
Because he shat out 2 and a half hours of DUDE SPACE LMAO and dumbasses ever since think its the best movie ever
>>70667614
How much is too much copying? At what point must you credit an inspiration? Obvious complete copying aside.
>>70667525
tarkovsky literally, elevated cinema as an art form.
>>70667677
I'd say it was too much.
I mean the director of requiem of a dream had to buy the rights to an anime just to do a sequence of a girl screaming in a bathtub.
>>70667640
also, solaris is better.
>>70667738
This is more obvious due to how iconic Apocalypse Now is. But just pretend that it was an obscure film. Should Abrams be required to credit each instance of direct inspiration? I'm just curious.
>>70667000
Because /tv is filled with a bunch of autistics who hate everything popular. If kubrick didnt have the fame he has, everyone would love him. /Tv is pretty much a competition on who can have the most unique taste
>>70667902
I don't think it should be "required" because then nutjobs will think every shot in the movie is a take from their film and demand to be listed as inspiration.
>dude you shot a bowl of bananas on a counter
>REFERENCE ME OR ILL SUE
>>70667902
But AN is a famous movie and because of it Abrams' homage is exactly that - the homage. Meanwhile when you copy some obscure movie and don't even give it a shout-out... yeah, I have a problem with that. It's same thing in music industry too.
>>70668044
>>70668028
> Meanwhile when you copy some obscure movie and don't even give it a shout-out... yeah, I have a problem with that.
I'll use the example anon used earlier. So in a case like pic related, crediting Satoshi Kon is the right thing to do because Perfect Blue is more of an obscure film. But in the case of AN, since virtually everyone knows what that is, it doesn't matter?
What if an entire film is made up of smaller inspirations? What if George Lucas didn't credit all his sources? War footage from WII, Kurosawa, Flash Gordon. Would that be stealing?
>>70667000
Well gee whiz, if I were to guess it would be because some people like him and some people don't.
>>70668206
The lines are rather blurred when it comes to this/that, but keep in mind Road to the Stars and 2001 are the same genre, and same subgenre even, it needs to count for something. The famous "we worked on it for 5 years" gimmick gets instantly fishy, because The Sentinel is credited as an inspiration, but there are multiple shots that reek of Road to the Stars and it never gets credited not even from a technical standpoint.
>>70667000
because he was a jew, and /tv/ is split in between him being a good filmaker or a great jew
>>70667000
2001 was great, loved the monkey scene and that computer guy was badass. Clockwork Orange was okay but uh what does the title mean and also rape scenes date the movie a lot. The Shining was confusing, no idea what was going on and I give this movie an F-. Eyes Wide Shut, I guess someone said it was a dream or something, also very confusing F+. AI was probably the best, loved the bear, he was badass.
>>70667721
fucking pleb, Looks up some fellini or Dreyer before you go around saying that shit
Literally the stupidest thing I ever read
>>70669681
fellini, tarkovsky and dreyer are all on the same level desu famalam.
>>70667235
yes, and he makes kubrick so much greater in comparison
>>70667721
tarkosky tried way too hard
i'll take hawks any day before him
>>70669715
I would rank kubrick among them
>>70669715
no, they're not
tarvosky only made one great film
fellini did two
dreyer did four
>>70669796
your either saying Mirror is shit, or Stalker is shit or they are both shit, either way, you are a complete dumb cunt
>>70669796
>Mirror
>Andrei Rublev
>Stalker
I think those are all great films.
>>70669830
>>70669842
Andrei Rublev is his only great film
Mirror is ok and Stalker is a meme, 6/10 movie
>>70669921
>Stalker is a meme
Look at you faggot, you are pretty much saying the only reason the movie is shit is because its his most well known. You are probs a little 15 year old fag who discovered cinema like last year and will do anything to appear unique
>>70669984
6/10 is above average
just not really good
He's brilliant. Barry Lyndon is the most well crafted film ever made. It's a work of art that has never and maybe will never be equaled. Anyone who doesn't see him as brilliant is incorrect.
>>70669681
HOOOBLACARTOOLYPIK
HOW ABOUT THAT
>>70669984
and what i mean by meme is that it is so hyped that i expected it to be an spiritual experience or something and it wasn't, just an interesting but not very good film (also, i didn't know it was his best-known one)
>>70667255
wtf i hate 2001 and kubrick now
