![stanley-kubrick[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tomYOQY.jpg "stanley-kubrick[1].jpg")
Why do people consider him overrated?
He deserves every bit of recognition owed to him. Nothing today even comes close to the precision of his work.
Because he's also popular.
>>63085004
He's only overrated if you consider him an artistic director
If you think of him as a Hollywood director he's leaps and bounds above the competition
>>63085004
You haven't watched everything today and in the past to make that statement, reddit
>>63085004
His work is good, but there is better.
But since he is popular, he hits that sweet spot where he gets greatly overrated, because he is popular and in many eyes one of the best directors.
While opinions differ, people who have an above average knowledge of cinema will realize that there are directors that surpass him.
Like for example Sion Sono, which is sort of popular here. Even if he makes weird japano-trash movies, his works like Love Exposure surpass everything Kubrick has ever achieved.
>>63085090
>While opinions differ, people who have an above average knowledge of cinema will realize that there are directors that surpass him.
Most pretentious thing I've heard on /tv/ all day.
>>63085004
He adapted everything he did
>>63085124
Is that necessarily a criticism?
You could say that proves he has good taste because all his major films have strong stories
>>63085124
>Accepts he's a cinematographer, not a writer
>Takes other people's stories to use
>this is somehow a bad thing
Overrated doesn't mean he's bad, it just means that he's not the greatest director to ever live like most people claim.
Most Italian and French directors of the 50's and 60's were leagues above anything he ever did.
>>63085108
But it's true.
This a pretty basic example, but if you look into music you will find 10000s of faggots who believe the beatles/or some classic musicians are greatest musicians ever lived on earth. While they are good and had a big influence, they aren't as great as people make them out to be.
what is pretentious about that?
It's like comparing capeshit to serious cinema.
>>63085187
this guy gets it
>>63085124
But no one considers Aurher C Clark and Stephen King the greatest writers to ever live. Their writing is mediocre but come up with great concepts that more talented artists can adapt into something much greater.
DUDE CENTERED SHOTS LMAO
>>63085226
I think you're looking for the Wes Anderson thread
>>63085238
am I though?
https://vimeo.com/48425421
>>63085090
You seriously think Love Exposure is greater than 2001? Don't get me wrong, Love exposure is incredible, but really?
>>63085090
>Love Exposure surpass everything Kubrick has ever achieved.
This is the most retarded comment i've ever read. You must be a weeb.
>>63085187
What makes a guy like who i assume you mean antonioni, godard or bunuel better then all the others, i watch a lot of film but i haven't a clue why these guys are such masters, how do i understand my film more m8s, are there some good books?
>>63085388
Read reviews on every film you watch. Positive and negative ones. Read the wiki page, the context in which it was released. Watch a director's filmography in chronological order.
>>63085040
This.
>>63085004
because he's pretentious af and a lot of his movies have outdated filming techniques that don't hold up at all, or were even considered good at the time.
>The Shining was panned upon release
>I watched it this year (with the time period, the adaptation source and outright 'explanations' of metaphors in perspective) and didn't like it because of nicholson playing himself like always and the main theme of the work being kind of overlooked, which is the hotel being sentient and charming jack into falling in love with it and killing anyone who doesn't like it
2001 was still fucking incredible. incredibly boring and too long at times (and that's the cut version), has a lot of bullshit like the ending 'lel baby of the universe that transcends humanity' but god damn watching it in 1968 would have blown anyone's fucking mind to bits.
his 'precision' and attention to detail are bullshit though. stories like "lel strangelove had a green table" and "he took 1 million billion takes for 1 scene" are hard to pay attention to when he makes something so garbage as the 2001 Bone to Satellite match cut, and don't give me any of that garbage 'but it was supposed to be a shit edit!' excuse
>>63085004
If by "precision" you mean complete control over the film and carefully crafted technical aspects of the film then I can think of 5 currently working directors that match him, Denis Villeneuve, Fincher, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alejandro Jodorowsky (arguable in some regards but in terms of him always telling the story he wants and doing so well) and PTA.
Not to say they are as good as Kubrick (some are) but they match his precision
>>63086168
>because he's pretentious
Stopped reading right there, that's a non-criticism, you could attach it to any piece of art.
>>63086194
I seriously hope you don't think Villeneuve, Fincher and Iñárritu are as good as Kubrick...
>>63086204
>Stop reading right there
good criticism faggot, might as well not reply at all
now go an fucking read the post
because he made entertaining films with concrete intellectual themes. This is a big no-no because intellectual artist is supposed to put the audience to sleep while they render the Lanacian-Marxist dialectic of suburban Ennui. The French and Italian hacks will be forgotten in few decades, Kubrick will live on.
>>63086168
You completely missed the point of The Shining as >King envisioned it idiot. The point was that Jack was already fucked, he couldn't control his alcoholism and was destined to destroy himself and his family with or without the paranormal shit that happened in the hotel.
Also, that point is still moot because the film and novel should be judged as separate entities.
>>63085004
He's every IMDb neo-cinephile mascot. His films are acclaimed, accessible and rank very high on the TOP 250. Ignore all his achievements and he's no better than Nolantino.
>>63086276
ignore everyone's achievements and they're no better than you. What a useless post
>>63086254
The "stopped reading there" wasn't the criticism you idiot, how about some reading comprehension?
>incredibly boring and too long at times
>bullshit like the ending 'lel baby of the universe that transcends humanity
>lel strangelove had a green table
Yeah i knew i shouldn't have wasted my time reading your post. Probably the least substantial in the thread because you actually try to make an argument but can't articulate anything other than memes.
>>63085011
Amen
>>63085124
There's literally nothing wrong with adapting novels if you make it your own, which is what Kubrick did.
Anyone that says Kubrick is overrated is either a contrarian or a pleb.
>>63086270
i wasn't really trying to mention king's vision of it. i know they are very different, but let's at least try to find a common theme, which i would think is the hotel. in the novel it's supposed to be ambiguous, but the movie outright tells you there's paranormal shit going on, which ruins everything.
>>63086304
even though i called him pretentious, i never implied that was part of my 'criticism'
so who needs
>reading comprehension
?
>try to make an argument but can't articulate anything other than memes
i'm sorry i thought this was /tv/. you wanna go to/r/moviesand write texts of wall at each other you fucking plebian?
>>63086349
It happens all the time.
>I like this director/whatever
>Wait, someone else likes him also
>Plebs
>>63086396
You calling him pretentious is a direct attack on him and his work. If you didn't mean it that way, please explain it.
>you wanna go to /r/movies and write texts of wall at each other you fucking plebian?
Nope, just a short and concise post will do.
People don't like him because his movies aren't as boring, slow and hard to understand as true artistes. But seriously no one in this thread has yet to give any articulate criticism of why he isn't very good because he's one of the best ever.
>>63086396
the paranormal shit is blatant on the novel, it's far more subtle on the film. Kubrick was actually aiming for ambiguity on the paranormal stuff, the only instance that can almost exclusively be explained as paranormal (and even still is open for debate) on the film is when Jack is able to leave the pantry by himself.
nolan certainly more overrated than kubrick, that's for sure
>>63086229
No but I mean in the term OP used, Precision they're directors equal
>>63086492
My only real criticism is that the really shocking scenes in Eyes Wide Shut (think stuff involving kids) got cut.
Now by no means do I want to see cp but the film could have been a GOAT horror/thriller if they'd pushed the boundaries
>>63086549
>scenes in Eyes Wide Shut (think stuff involving kids) got cut.
Speculation, non-criticism
>>63086549
Eyes Wide Shut is one his middling films though
>>63086194
>>63086229
what's ur opinion on PTA??
>>63086574
Sorry I thought I'd read that somewhere but I guess its just a rumour because of similarities to irl paedo stuff
>>63086194
Typical r/movies IMDb "filmbuff" opinion.
>>63086622
No problem, it's safe to assume it was something controversial like that that got cut. It's just silly to use it as "criticism"
>>63086502
dude, yeah, jack leaves the pantry with paranormal help and the very last shot of the movie outright fucking TELLS THE AUDIENCE it was paranormal. it's not "ooh spooky from jack's perspective", it's a shot meant exclusively for the audience to explain, yes, the ghosts are real.
>>63086478
i think a lot of his motifs are easy enough to understand, but he did a lot of things that make me want to say he's a hack who thinks he's all that but nobody gets it
for strangelove, he requested a green table just because he wanted to give it a "lel poker table because these guys are 'gambling' with the world" metaphor, but the movie is obviously B&W and none of the fucking actors understood what he was trying to do so it didn't impact their performance, it just wasted everyone's fucking time. he essentially got a green table for himself, which is ridiculous.
the 'all work and no play' pages that he actually made his poor secretary write out and make all slightly different to be distinguishable. this is a meta 'lel they're different so obviously somebody wrote this irl' thing and if anything, only makes the scene worse.
he wastes everyone's time, his pacing is fucking awful. half of 2001 is brilliant but the other half could just be thrown away. in fact, some time ago i did my own edit of it (up until the segment with Dave and Hal), and did things way better, utilizing visual storytelling to get a point across quickly. i fixed the bone-satellite match cut, i made an entire new match cut of a ship that looks like a pen cutting to an actual pen floating in mid-air, etc.
Who doesn't love Dr. Strangelove? I mean, how can you go about not liking Kubrick when Strangelove exists?
>>63085004
I really enjoy the atmosphere he can create.
>>63086276
>ignore all his achievements and he has no achievements
Wow I never thought of it like that.
>>63086757
Now i can finally understand your point, it ain't that hard is it?
>for strangelove, he requested etc...
>the 'all work and no play' pages that he actually made his poor secretary write out...
It's his film mate. Artists always were like that, everything needs to be perfectly aligned with their mental image, otherwise they'd feel some sort of compromise to their vision. I don't see any harm in eccentricities like that, art is extremely subjective and artists need freedom of expression, even if it looks stupid looking from the outside, you don't know what's going on in their heads.
>he wastes everyone's time, his pacing is fucking awful. half of 2001 is brilliant but the other half could just be thrown away...
I disagree. His objective wasn't to get his point across quickly, 2001 was meant to be an audiovisual spectacle, it's not a film about the story or a thesis
>>63085040
Second
>>63086757
>Kubrick is a bad filmmaker because wastes effort occasionally
Props to editing a film more to your liking though. Changing a film to cater to your own tastes definitely means the filmmaker is bad.
>>63086757
>pacing is fucking awful
I agree 2001 is drawn out but EWS has amazing pacing. The atmosphere shifts from comfy to dreamlike to uneasy really seamlessly
>>63085004
>Why do people consider him overrated?
Because of the fake moonlanding thing.
>>63086757
One salty motherfucker you are.
He wasn't a director though. He was actually a photographer. The reason 2001 (an ancient film that looks like it's filmed in the 80s or 90s) looks so crisp is because it was on 70mm film, something rare at the time but his profession (photographer) made him see the value.
>>63086887
if he wants to do something for himself that will not influence the work in any way, that's just pretentious.
i still think the pacing in 2001 is awful, and i found the files i edited, if you want i can give you a more insightful rundown of what shots i changed and how i cut down the movie.
>>63086931
oh look at me i actually felt i could do a better job editing it so that's what i did because i wanted to and because it interested me to see how it would turn out, fucking sorry, i'll go back to talking about creative things without ever trying to do something creative of my own. you fucking sheep
>>63087179
>if he wants to do something for himself that will not influence the work in any way, that's just pretentious.
Why? Pretentious is a meaningless word, but i'll play along.
> if you want i can give you a more insightful rundown of what shots i changed and how i cut down the movie.
>Do you wanna see this critically acclaimed film that i botched into a music video?
Nope
>>63087179
I'm not saying you shouldn't have done it, I'm saying that of course editing a movie to your liking would make you enjoy the edits more.
>>63085187
>Most Italian and French directors of the 50's and 60's were leagues above anything he ever did.
>my ice cream fall on ground
>I cry
>close up of tears
>life is futile
French "cinema" of the 60s
>>63087259
it's not a meaningless word when most consider him good BECAUSE of his eccentricity when in real life instead of dedication to his work, all that eccentricity does is appeal to his ego
>botched music video
sure, judge it without having ever seen it
i only edited the first 54 minutes and turned it into 37. i still understand what makes the movie visually appealing, like the space stuff and the cool tech that didn't exist back then but does now
>the man himself had reels up the ass and didn't even know how to cut it down. also, he cut 20 minutes from the premiere because of pacing issues and was embarrassed by the footage, choosing to hoard the reels and then burn them.
>>63087464
this is one of the most famous movies to make your own edits of and tons of filmmakers do it because everyone knows it has pacing issues. it's not just me going 'this movie is too long, lele my favorite director is michael bay i need explosions xDD' it's that even with me cutting all the 100% pointless shit out it's still too fucking long
>>63085040
>implying there's any art worth noting outside hollywood
really getting tired of /pol/ flooding this board with their delusional antisemitic canards
>>63086194
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
>>63087554
explain pls
Anyone else fall asleep during the first two thirds of 2001? The book makes that part, and every part, spectacular. How can a man's vision be so...dull?
>>63087704
Shadow of the helicopter shooting intro footage for The Shining. Amateur mistake.
>>63087704
helicopter shadow in a shot. from the beginning of the shining
>>63087581
>most consider him good BECAUSE of his eccentricity
I don't, so it's still a meaningless word to me. I think you're shitting at his creative process, something no spectator should ever meddle with. If the man wanted a green table and didn't get it, things could've been different. Who gives a shit about all the weird stuff he did or didn't do? The final product is what matters, not the sometimes inconsequential whims.
Also don't take it personally, i just don't feel like watching your cut.
>>63087704
He was breaking the 4th wall to remind us that we'll be seeing a movie, this is especially visionary because most films do that in the ending, not the beginning. Kubrick, as always, pushes the boundries foward
>>63087772
>>63087798
Pleb detected
>>63087735
You should still understand how pointless it is. You know, if a football player wants to do a pre-game ritual to help his game, cool. It won't do anything except help his confidence which can improve his ability, but the ritual itself is pointless as far as the game goes, all it does is stroke your ego.
I totally understand if you don't want to watch some random guy's edit of a movie and I never intended to upload any of it, but I said it has pacing and editing issues and you disagreed, which is why I mentioned the 54 mins into 37 mins thing and how I made some boring shots interesting
>>63087833
>all it does is stroke your ego
And it puts you in the right mentality to do your work properly. You wouldn't say an athlete is pretentious doing it, why would you say an artist is? Art is even more delicate than sports, no wonder a lot of them use hard drugs, you're completely exposing yourself to be judged.
>>63087903
i agree. hell, i even have my own rituals and i know how things like the home advantage can be very real. but the thing is, a lot of his behaviors are whiny and people see him as this eccentric perfectionist when he's not because he can't pace or edit movies for shit. helicopter pic in this thread related.
this brings me back to my original point, that his movie techniques are outdated. things like citizen kane still hold up. a lot of great movies from the 50's and 60's hold up. kubrick does not hold up, even if i put myself in that frame of mind of an audience from that time period.
some of my favorite directors that do pacing well- scorcese, fincher, nolan, hitchcock, lucas.
meanwhile kubrick and others like coppola make movies that are still objectively important and good, but some parts can be so hard to sit through.
christ, even michael bay can do pacing well
>>63088265
I think you're paying too much attention to kubrick, you should pay more to his films. They absolutely hold up, especially 2001. I seriously don't see any pacing issues, but then again, i'm a Tárr fan. I'm tired of arguing desu, you just don't like him, that's ok
>>63085090
I wish this meme would die, but I guess it won't until we run out of teenagers seeing their first Japanese film.
>>63085004
>Nothing today even comes close to the precision of his work.
Technically, sure, but there's more to art than that. All great directors have said the same thing about Stanley: he's a technical master, but he makes cold, autistic films. And even then only Barry Lyndon and 2001 are the only ones worth talking about in that aspect. The rest are sleek and well-done, but nothing to write home about. Even then I wouldn't even call him the greatest visual storyteller, only a great visual artist in a very certain sense of the word.
>>63085004 -being considered the greatest director by some as one reason plus not all his movies are masterpieces like Loltia and killers kiss are just considered great because his name is attached to them as director
>>63085004
I love Full Metal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove. I acknowledge he was a good cinematographer, but he wasn't some brilliant auteur in any sense of the word.
Favourite director of teenagers and people who never stopped being teenagers.
>>63085004
He produced some classics and some steamy turds as well. I can't fault him for his efforts though.
>>63086757
>>63087581
>>63087179
>>63088265
>Hates the match cut
>thinks slow=pacing issues
>talks about "100% pointless shit"
>judges a director for things external to their films
>thinks le Interstellar/Dark Knight Rises Man does pacing well
>"i still understand what makes the movie visually appealing, like the space stuff and the cool tech that didn't exist back then but does now"
Confirmed for not fucking getting it.
>>63085011
done in one
/thread
>>63087665
>>63085004
Too redpilled.
Emasculated hipsters need an excuse to bash him for that.
>>63089963
>Hates the match cut
if you had read some of my earlier posts you'd know i know about the "lel match cut is genius, it's supposed to be jarring and shitty" shit people say
>thinks slow=pacing issues
i don't care if something is slow, true detective s1 is slow but fantastic all the way through and never boring. 2001 has tons of filler.
>judges a director for things external to their films
how, exactly? i know ZERO about kubrick's personal life or views on anything and don't care. i only care about the movies
>thinks le Interstellar/Dark Knight Rises Man does pacing well
cool, mention 2 of his worst movies and omit Memento, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, Inception.
>Confirmed for not fucking getting it.
i said i understand what makes the movie VISUALLY appealing, which is why I kept a lot of the spectacle intact like the parts in space and kept part of the Skype call the dude makes.
i get the plot of the movie, as i also hinted to in an earlier post. Speaking of that, in the edit I made I tried to make the monolith more mysterious.
>>63090312
>if you had read some of my earlier posts you'd know i know about the "lel match cut is genius, it's supposed to be jarring and shitty" shit people say
I did read it, I just thought your argument was shitty. What's wrong with the cut, that they don't perfectly line up?
>i only care about the movies
So why do you keep mentioning the green table in strangelove?
>mention 2 of his worst movies
stop picking examples that contradict my point!
>i understand what makes the movie VISUALLY appealing
Apparently not, seeing as you seem to think it's the "shiny future technology"
It's funnny you mention that 2001 has lots of filler and then say you kept the Skype call, that's one of the few scenes I think doesn't add very much.
>>63086168
>garbage as the 2001 Bone to Satellite match cut,
that cut is completely iconic. It's a landmark moment in film history. It's an achievement. It transcends any cliche qualities it has because it is an archetype.
>>63086168
>"he took 1 million billion takes for 1 scene"
That was a technique of psychological manipulation. That's how he got the woman in the shining to act all spaced out while Jack threatens her. If you do the same thing over and over like that it loses meaning and you get into a very abstract place. You can experience the same thing if you just choose a word and say it out loud over and over and over till it sounds like it isn't a word and you made it up.
I don't like his movies because they are long and boring.
>>63090787
when i first saw the cut, i literally thought something was wrong with the video, paused it and looked it up.
i mentioned the green table because kubrick's biggest tag is that people say "oh, he's such a perfectionist" when it doesn't show in his movies at all.
you picked 2 examples of less than stellar nolan movies, i still think he's one of the best directors of this generation.
i already said several times what makes the movie appealing VISUALLY. i don't mean the plot or the themes or any of that, not the space baby, not the monolith giving intelligence, none of it. what gives the movie VISUAL appeal is
a) the space scenes. 70mm beautifully shot, beautiful props, music complements it well. incredible
b) the sci-fi tech that actually became reality today, but audiences back then wouldn't know. like the Skype calls, the tablet like stuff, etc. not to mention fucking going to the moon
>>63091032
how would you ever know that's what his intention was? this is my biggest problem, how people are so META about movies. i see a shitty match cut and think "the fuck?", people are like "wow, it's so shitty on purpose because they're trying to disconnect you from acts 1 and 2".
what i see in the shining is jack nicholson played by jack nicholson and shelley being an awful actress. in reality if i had to do so many takes, i wouldn't break down and cry, i'd probably be worse and worse with each take.
in people's minds every shitty thing he does is "genius", creating this post-modernist outlook on everything when it wasn't supposed to be that way.
even though it has iconic scenes, it's still overall not a very good movie, and not scary at all. psycho had people screaming out the theatre 20 years prior to that. the shining got razzy nominated
>>63091287
You haven't really engaged with any of my points, you've just restated what you've said previously. Unless you actually want to develop your arguments we have nothing more to discuss.
>>63091357
i don't even know which poster you are, but i think i've answered to everyone in a sufficient manner. which points have i neglected to mention?
>>63091287
>i see a shitty match cut and think "the fuck?"
no one thinks it's a shitty match cut. You sound like a film student who has learned some basic rules about film making and doesn't have the experience or intelligence to recognize when those rules are being broken effectively, as if you thought cubism was stupid cause the perspectives were all wrong.
>>63091287
>i'd probably be worse and worse with each take.
well you aren't a professional actor and like I said, it's not about making her cry, it's about inducing a state of depersonalization which he apparently wanted to achieve.
>>63091450
I asked you to explain why the match cut was shitty. You just said "When I first saw it I thought the video was broken"
I accused you of focusing on things external to the film itself (the green table), you just repeated your statement again.
I showed you examples of where Nolan films had poor pacing, you just said "b-b-but he's still my favorite"
I disagreed with you that the flashy space tech was what made the visuals impressive, in response you just listed the space tech and mentioned music for some reason.
Don't bother writing a reply to this post, I won't read it.
>>63091525
everything you say is meta and making it seem like kubrick's work is post-modern. he didn't effectively break the rules of a simple editing technique if instead of disconnecting me from act1 to act 2 it disconnected me from the entire movie. i don't even know what a 60's audience would think about it. i can literally say anything i do wrong is on purpose and a form of social commentary. there's a difference between satire and post-modernism and doing things outside the box and just doing something bad.
i know this will probably make you think i'm a bigger idiot, but i am an aspiring actor, and i (despite it obviously already existing) invented method acting in my own head independently.
shelley is barely a professional actor though, and even in that scene she's just not believable (which you may again argue was on purpose). nicholson is good, but doesn't have much range.
>>63091682
>i'll just say you're wrong without actually stating my position on anything, i'll give you examples to prove my (non-existent) point but you can't state examples for your point, again i'll just disagree with you with no explanation or without elaborating on my views. oh and don't reply.
youtube comment tier
>>63085108
this
>>63091829
Ok let's try something simple. Explain why you think the match cut is shit. Please try and do so without saying "people who think it's shit on purpose are dum-dums"
>>63091829
>i (despite it obviously already existing) invented method acting in my own head independently.
You should read Stanislavski because you probably don't have any idea what method acting is outside of the public perception of it and Wikipedia type explanations.
>>63091829
>everything you say is meta and making it seem like kubrick's work is post-modern
nothing I say is meta or post modern at all. The match cut is a great cut because it's an excellent way to transition over hundreds or thousands of years in a manner of seconds. Take a moment and think of alternate ways you could have made the transition and you will see few of them are as smooth as well as memorable as the match cut. You could have a cue card saying the amount of time pasted, or a more confusing cut to the future with no explanation, or some kind of cheesy sped up time lapse of the earth, but do any of these options offer you the same grace and simplicity of the match cut? It's an excellent cut. The fact you think it's bad or that it's some kind of post-modern satire really only gives the impression you have no idea what any of those things are and have spent too much time in places like this.
I can see it now, people asking you how you learned your craft and you say, "Some people go to school for film, some people go to the movies, I just go to the memes."
>>63091829
>even in that scene she's just not believable
you can debate this all you want, it's not really relevant to the point I was making about Kubrick's having her do the scene a million times. I was just telling you why he did that. I think it's pretty effective. She's not acting realistically, everyone thinks of course they would turn and run if that was happening, but the sense of denationalization shows on her face, and in the context of the place being haunted and messing with the characters, it makes perfect sense. She is acting strangely because she is in an affected state inthestory and irl becauseofKubrick'sdirection
>this fucking thread
Holy shit, I haven't laughed so hard in ages. The contrarianism and retardation in this board is fucking ridiculous now.
>>63085090
2001 was a fucking benchmark for film. I'll trust the fucking huge number of great directors who have applauded it over a guy on /tv/ who's seen Snatch with the subtitles on and thinks he's a cross-culturual artistic demi-god.
>>63090787
>that contradict my point!
you're the one who claimed Nolan's pacing is terrible because of IS and TDKR, the other guy then mentioned 4 movies of his that were paced well. you're the one who's basically saying ''stop contradicting my point!''
>Apparently not, seeing as you seem to think it's the "shiny future technology''
so you're saying that if you removed all the ''technology'' from it that people spent hundreds and hundreds of hours designing, it would have a negligible, if at all, impact on the visuals of the film?
>''I think doesn't add very much.''
>he didn't get it
>>63085124
That's your reason? Like The Shining is just a rip off the book? Or Full Metal Jacket is juts borrowed material from the really short book? He wrote everything he directed. Also, there is a big fucking difference between novels and film by the way fuckstick. Don't even like Kubrick that much but people are fucking morons when they talk about him.
The only real problem I have with the Shining is that Nicholson's character is supposed to be going slowly insane, but he's played by Nicholson so he's insane right off the bat.
I wonder how it would have turned out had Keitel stayed on board.
>>63092587
I'm happy to concede that some of Nolan's movies are well paced, I just found it amusing that he compared Kubrick, who has flawless pacing in pretty much all his movies, to Nolan who has some movies where the pacing fucking stinks.
>so you're saying that if you removed all the ''technology'' from it that people spent hundreds and hundreds of hours designing, it would have a negligible, if at all, impact on the visuals of the film?
What a ridiculous straw man.
>>63086194
Very true, but you missed a lot of directors than people fanboy on here so don't expect it to go down well. I'd get rid of Fincher, think 2/3 of his films are top class but the rest are filler. Inarritu will get hated on here because of Birdman but anyone who has seen and can appreciate Amores Perros would absolutely agree with you. PTA is the exact figure people will be talking about in 30 years, The Master, Punch Drunk Love, TWBB, Boogie Nights, he's made classics and he's still pretty young
>tldr people on /tv/ do not know what they're talking about
>>63085090
>Love Exposure surpass everything Kubrick has ever achieved
damn son, you are retarded as fuck
>>63086394
This.
>>63085004
He's a good director to use to get into film but I hardly ever return to anything he made anymore. I think the only movies he made that attained greatness were Eyes Wide Shut and 2001. Some decent stuff here and there outside of that but then you had dogshit like The Shining and Dr. Strangelove.
He's alright but his admittedly impressive focus on immaculately constructed shots and symmetrical precision just give his movies a kind of suffocating feeling that feels sterile to me.
2001:A Space Odyssey is quite simply the worst thing to happen to cinema ever. Its forced profundity has caused millions of people all over the world to force themselves to like what is quite simply nothing more than an exercise in style.
Kubrick has no idea what he is doing here. His film jumps around with little to no sense of unity. The great film makers of the world create a series of events that contain clarity of information, something Kubrick couldn't bet his life on.
What is the purpose of what is going on here? Is there any coherent message? I have heard suggestions that it is Kubrick's message about the future of humanity, but what future is that? Does Kubrick even know?
This is Transformers for the art house crowd. Pure style over substance. Nobody actually likes this film, they just like to be seen liking it.
>>63094229
lol you are completely wrong. The so called 'exercises of style' are the hallmarks of cinema being an art at all. Most of cinema is just a garbage imitation of theatre.
>>63087581
>most consider him good BECAUSE of his eccentricity
Most consider him good because he made visually beautiful films while still apealling to the mainstream
>>63092265
>>63092243
>You should read Stanislavski
I have read some
The match cut BY ITSELF AS A TECHNIQUE is great. It was a SHITTY match cut, so shitty that I was like "Wait, what kind of editing is this? Did the movie just skip?". In fact if you have read what I said about my edit, I said I FIXED the match cut and added another match cut between a pen looking ship and an actual pen.
You seem to be horribly misunderstanding some of what I have said.
Again, a match cut (a good one) is great and I love them. The execution of the match cut in 2001 is awful. So awful that there's actual people saying "it's done so shoddily to keep the audience on its toes and this jarring effect kind of alerts them to pay attention". For an audience to think about the film-making technique being part of the "art" of it is meta, and if the match cut was so shitty on purpose it would evoke post-modernism, where you would question whether or not it was part of the actual art of the movie.
imo: the match cut was not so shitty on purpose. it was just shitty.
i have read a bit about it and apparently shelley was super distressed. prinicipal photography took over a year and she started to lose her hair. eh, still, she could only get away with that kind of acting in a david lynch movie
>>63094229
>The great film makers of the world create a series of events that contain clarity of information
Well that's clearly wrong
Plenty of great filmmakers create movies whose message is obviously not completely clear, but requires a moment of reflection or rewatch
>inb4 you're just a pleb that doesn't understand simple movie
Fucking tell me that Persona is a series of events that contains clarity of information
>>63095658
HOW is it shitty? What makes it shitty? You still haven't answered these questions, and again you're talking about what other people think about the technique instead of yourself.
If you're baiting me congratulations, you've got me mad.
>>63096628
Dude, you ever see the match cut and how bad it is? The bone doesn't match the satellite at all. They're in different positions, at a different angle, the momentum is different, the sound cuts abruptly, it's just completely off. Simply put, the MATCH cut doesn't MATCH.
>>63085187
>Most Italian and French directors of the 50's and 60's were leagues above anything he ever did.
You clearly just claim to enjoy foreign films to seem cultured. Specific directors might be better than him, but saying dozens of avant-garde "artistes" are greater than one of the most eminent directors of all time is literally retarded.
>>63085004
only 2001 was above decent
he sucks
genre shit and boring symbolism because thats all his pea brain knew
>>63087581If Kubrick didbt habr 2001 under hus belt Michael Bay would be more interesting at least he doesnt completely rely on boring easy symbolism
>>63094229
2001 is coherent as fuck, every frame, every piece of music, every theme is placed in a way that's interwoven with the whole thing. It baffles me that people here think they can dismiss works like 2001 as something bad just because they can't grasp anything from it. Well son, you just might be not that "clever" as you thought. And stop projecting so much, the fact that you're an illiterate fuck doesn't mean that everyone who says to like 2001 is faking.
>>63088265
lucas didnt pace original trogy retard
>>63097413
>lucas only made star wars
you fucking dope
>>63092681
keitel was underrated af
/tv/ you contrarian hipsters.
>>63090312
True Detective S1 is your measurment for slow you fucking pleb? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA YOU MOTHERFUCKER. I read all of your fucking posts thinking "maybe he'll explain his shit better" but COME ON. If you think TD first season is slow I just don't know what you watch usually, k-pop videos at 2x speed I guess.
>>63096801
But thematically it fits perfectly....
>>63097733
I never EVER contested this. It fits incredibly well, with the bone being the first weapon humanity used and the satellite (a laser weapon allegedly), being how far we've come since then, which is part of the whole meaning of the movie. Human intelligence and evolution due to the monolith. But it's just executed so fucking bad
>>63097671
tell me what's slow then?
I don't think he's bad, I just find him sophomoric
I've seen la règle du jeu and was absolutely captured by the characters and their actions, kubrick's characters never feel like they have an inner life in that sense
>>63085195
Kubrick wasn't the Beatles
Kubrick was Beethoven.
>>63094483
>>63095769
>>63097410
>responding to old pasta
