Why is Sup Forums so divided on this guy?

Why is Sup Forums so divided on this guy?

237 layers of ironic shitposting have left Sup Forums confused about how they really feel

mainly the jew thing

no one on Sup Forums 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.

Because people discovered he stole most his 2001 imagery from a japanese film.

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.

he was the tarantino of his generation.
that's all you need to know...

Sup Forums loves kubrick but Sup Forums loves shitposting more, why is why they seem divided on him

?????

he's good but entry level.
redditors love him because they haven't been exposed to more film

Because Tarkovsky exists

...

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.

/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

fucking tark-fags can't shut up about their king.
If you think mirror is his best work you're part of the problem.

>Sup Forums loves kubrick
piss off redditor.
the only director Sup Forums loves is malick

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.

meh

There's a lot more comparisons too in addition to this.

and George Lucas

Kubrick, like several other directors labeled as entry level around here, is worth repeat viewings.

Because every single Sup Forums media related board equates entry level with being bad. All of them do it.

you need to watch more film then

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 Sup Forums takes on an ironic persona of elitism and it's an easy target

Why does he get away with this? He never even credited Road to the Stars IIRC.

>Tarovsky

shit taste, you should probably kill youself

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

How much is too much copying? At what point must you credit an inspiration? Obvious complete copying aside.

tarkovsky literally, elevated cinema as an art form.

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.

also, solaris is better.

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.

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

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

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.

> 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 user 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?

Well gee whiz, if I were to guess it would be because some people like him and some people don't.

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.

because he was a jew, and Sup Forums is split in between him being a good filmaker or a great jew

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.

fucking pleb, Looks up some fellini or Dreyer before you go around saying that shit

Literally the stupidest thing I ever read

fellini, tarkovsky and dreyer are all on the same level desu famalam.

yes, and he makes kubrick so much greater in comparison

tarkosky tried way too hard
i'll take hawks any day before him

I would rank kubrick among them

no, they're not
tarvosky only made one great film
fellini did two
dreyer did four

your either saying Mirror is shit, or Stalker is shit or they are both shit, either way, you are a complete dumb cunt

>Mirror
>Andrei Rublev
>Stalker

I think those are all great films.

Andrei Rublev is his only great film
Mirror is ok and Stalker is a meme, 6/10 movie

>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

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.

HOOOBLACARTOOLYPIK

HOW ABOUT THAT

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)

wtf i hate 2001 and kubrick now