is this accurate?
Stanley Kubrick
actually yeah
accurate for most acclaimed directors
yes pretty much
maybe it doesnt raise so much in the end as even out, but the only people i see witha contempt for kubrick are trying (and failing) to prove something
Patricians realize that Spielberg is better
How true is this?
no, most of his films are too flashy and shallow, but what do you expect from a genre filmmaker? i've never met a patrician Kubrick fan
Contrarian valley detected. Why do you cling to your edge inside of climbing up to the patrician summit?
Hindsight love is a bit of a bastard. I don't think anyone likes him as much now as they did after Ep 5 but whatever.
Accurate for pretty much anything in life.
People want to separate themselves from pseudo-intellectuals so they like more obscure things and shit on the popular thing in order to sound 'enlightened'.
Yes
He didn't direct Episode 5.
Closer to this
i'm not a contrarian, modern genre films are universally shallow compared to character-driven dramas that don't rely on external antagonism. I think it's a fairly reasonable statement considering how little there depth there is to his movies. If you want entertainment, that's fine, but some people watch film for other reasons.
This.
>character-driven dramas that don't rely on external antagonism
examples?
I'd say it is spot on
This guy is also correct
Spielberg is too hit or miss because of he just churns shit out, especially as he's gotten older
Absolutely.
Just rewatched A Clockwork Orange after a very long time and it's very-very good. A solid 9/10 for me, only not 10/10 because it drags on a little towards the middle.
Flip it around and it is correct
Ask any pleb off the street who is the best director ever and 6/10 will say Kubrick, 2/10 will say Nolan, and 2/10 will have somebody else.
The real thing about kubrick is that he's an entry-level director. He's a great start-off point for getting into film. There's just enough depth there to enjoy them if you're "patrician," but they are also straightforward enough if you are newer to film. They aren't shallow, but they aren't as deep as they could be, and you definitely realize this as you watch more art films.
The ideal graph would even off at the end rather than continuing to go up, but the rest of the graph is accurate.
the films of Nanni Moretti, Abbas Kiarostami, Paolo Sorrentino, Ken Loach, etc. etc. etc.
Sorrentino owns a lot to Kubrick.
>shallow
I've never heard someone argue that his films are that deep. Maybe teenagers who are seeing their first movie where everything isn't 100% spelled out, but let's ignore them for arguments sake.
I can see how you could see his work as 'flashy and shallow' but his cinematic, aesthetic and atmospheric perfection is what makes his films so revered. He creates a very enthralling experience.
yup
t. movie buff
This graph is worthless because a lot of stacy whores put him in their OKC profiles to brag similar to what they're doing with dostoevsky
Kubrick's films can be enjoyed on several different levels, to say they lack depth is just intellectually dishonest. Sure you can enjoy them for their surface story, but there's a lot going on beneath the surface. The Shining and Room 237(the documentary) is a good example of this. I'm not saying the theories are good, but the fact that people are able to read all those different interpretations and subtext into the film is proof that there is more to it than just some horror film. Also, "art" films tend to be the most shallow, they're often more concerned with aesthetic and appearing intellectual than actually conveying anything of substance.
this doesn't make any sense to me
i think you have brought too much baggage into this conversation
Was this a patrician film?
contrarian pleb detected
accurate
>Ask any pleb off the street who is the best director ever and 6/10 will say Kubrick, 2/10 will say Nolan
You are really full of shit, most people don't even know directors by name
Yes, but overrated as far as Kubrick films go
It's good but the "You talking to me?" scene has moved to an iconic level it doesn't deserve
It's better if you realize that the ending isn't real, though
Contrarian to whom? Spielberg is more acclaimed than Kubrick by many criteria.
Another tripfag for the filter :^)
Kubrick isn't a genre filmmaker
>compared to character-driven dramas that don't rely on external antagonism
>rely on external antagonism
wtf did you mean by this?
i don't know what patrician is but yes, this is a very good film
>genre filmmaker
Nice buzzwords /lit/
Am I being trolled here?
Precisely.
By what part?
was that 'glitch' at the end influenced by new wave?
the fuck has this cunt down since ep 3?
dumb plebs detected
This is retarded. Disney making shit doesn't excuse the fact that the prequels were abominations. In an ideal world, Star Wars would've ended with Return of the Jedi.
Red Tails
the prequels needed to happen, meme magic wills it
I think the idea is that after we saw the focus group and hollywood executive written, soulless pandering that was episode 7, people began to forgive Lucas for the prequels because at least he tried something kinda different.
This is exactly it. The prequels had some serious problems (mostly with the script being absolute garbage, just a dialogue revision alone would probably bring every prequel up by a huge margin) but you can tell there's some very imaginative universe building going on. Meanwhile Episode VII was so derivative and bland that one of my friends had literally no idea that Jakku wasn't Tatooine until I pointed it out after the movie.
I hope you actually read the graph correctly and realize that movie buffs has lower IQ than contrarians and didn't just see the word peak.
i interpreted that post as an implication that this is how movie buffs see directors, not how "patricians" do
it's in reverse
Has Spielberg ever directed a bad film?
The BFG and War Horse
Everything since "Catch Me If You Can" has been crap
Watch Eyes Wide Shut again after the shit that's come out in Wikileaks.
He's one of the GOATs.
what came out of wikileaks?
truthbombs nigga!
>munich, war of the worlds and lincoln
>crap
>a steady incline in quality for the OT
But that's wrong.
I dunno I consider myself a pleb but I love Kubrick films.
I don't think I'm smart enough to appreciate why they're good, I think it's just a coincidence that I find them all entertaining (as lots of them cross into areas of other interest for me, like Space for 2001 or vaguely fascist 70s Britain for ACO.)
>soap opera fan detected
and visual autism.
I think Eyes Wide Shut is decently deep. Definitely a lot of layers touching on many different themes that I don't think an average viewer would necessarily catch onto.
Munich is fucking awesome
Ask any pleb off the street who the best director is and they'll say they don't know 60% of the time.
kubrick is always listed along with nolan, fincher, etc for top directors when it comes to pleb bro intellectuals.
when you get into entry level patrician territory, the love is towards ozu, dreyer, fassbinder, kiarostami, etc. pretty much always over kubrick
that's a spielberg film, not kubrick
More like a sine curve desu
Yes
Even for Nolan and Memeantino?