Why was he so much better than any filmmaker who ever lived before or after?

Why was he so much better than any filmmaker who ever lived before or after?

did you know boyhood took twelve years to make?

Genius level IQ. Researched topics so much that he surprised all the elites with how accurate he was with top secret information that the general public shouldn't know.

Unironically? I mean

It's kind of agreed under the rug he probably had asperger's syndrome and was just fucking motivated and obsessed ten fold above everyone else on one particular subject, and that happened to be film. Not quite a savant, just someone obsessed with structure. Like he was on adderall his entire life.

It was about the damn time
If it took any longer, it would be Teenagehood instead

I am warning you, Javert

This. Most people with a high IQ can never translate it into success and are isolated or dysfunctional. With film you have to be able to connect to the masses. Kubrick was the one in a million autist genius who could connect to the viewer.

because it takes a jew to jew a jew

woah........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

t. Pleb

Weaponized autism.

Also, he took 10 years to work on a movie.

Haven't seen Spartacus, though. Is it canon? How does it compare to the rest? Is it worth it?

because he was a high functioning autist/OCD freak

no other director will ever be that mentally ill

not to take anything away from his genius, but part of why he became seminal was that he was born at the right time in the right place. he could cultivate his talent in new york city at its cultural peak, go on to work in the hollywood studio system at its peak, then evolve with the radical cultural shift of the '60s. his topics were ones of the golden age of the mid-century like nuclear weapons, space travel, etc. his career also plots neatly with the major advances of film technology. there was a space for such a man to become a great artist and he was the one who occupied it.

Kubrick considered it not canon.

I don't care for anything he's made but strangelove. I'm not sure he ever should have been more than a dop.

go watch stanley kubrick's boxes and you'll realize that he was an insane person that could keep his insanity under control

he was a dank meme

>boxes
>room 237
What's with the attempts to discredit him after his death and muddy the waters about his films?

It's really fucking weird and I don't believe there's anyone who takes these films seriously who isn't a paid shill or a moron.

Nah. Tarantino has him beaten.

what? have you even watched boxes? it doesn't discredit anything, they just explore his working process and go through his stuff

t. 16 year old imdb drone

Fincher and Malick have surpassed him.

YES I HAVE WATCHED BOXES YOU PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT

REFER TO PREVIOUS POST

Fincher does do the madman movies like clockwork MUCH better.

Coens have a broader portfolio of work without relying on edginess and sex like Kubrick as well.

that is a good point and you could say the same about Spielberg in the 70s. for some reason people pop up like it's fate.

not even close. fincher is a glorified mtv director. malick is a downright moron with no world view other than 'jesus will save everything'.

He started out as a photographer and quickly developed a fine eye for composition. He also believed that a movie should have an effect like listening to a symphony, with a variation of moods and intensity, as opposed to simply telling a story (story was just an element in his movies, but not one that was took priority over anything else; that's why he mostly adapted novels, because they provided the backbone on which to build everything he was really interested in.)

And, despite covering a relatively wide variety of genres, he also was a very personal type of filmmaker. In literature, for instance, you have Shakespeare who jumped from comedy to tragedy and was an observer of the human condition, changing his style to follow suit. On the other hand, you have someone like Thomas Bernhard who has a particular set of obsessions and keeps writing about them in the same manic style. Both are great writers for very different reasons. Kubrick was closer to Bernhard in that regard, despite the many genres thing.

Well said imo