Why is everything Kubrick has ever done so amazing?

Why is everything Kubrick has ever done so amazing?

because he photographs the photograph.

His lolita is shit, so not everything

Someone hasn't seen Fear and Desire yet.

his early films and full metal jacket are shit

What's the point of this? Why not film in the street?

why didn't they jsut film him on the fucking street

he did that but built a new york street set at pinewood studios england.

this was done because cruise felt more comfortable doing his medium shot againt back projection.

>this was done because cruise felt more comfortable doing his medium shot againt back projection.

no it fucking wasn't, it was done because Kubrick hated travelling

post more behind the scenes Kubrick

...

dude illuminati lmao!

Fuck Spielberg for turning AI into a pile of flaming garbage

lrn2read idiot

the back projection shots were done because cruise felt more comfortable doing close/medium shots in a studio environment.

And no they fucking weren't.

They took place in NYC, and Kubrick wasn't about to fly there, so they projected NYC street behind Cruise instead.

that's front projection not "back" (i.e. rear) projection

tbqh i thought barry lyndon was a little boring

kubrick was autistic about lighting

Fuck outta here. It was a good comedy.

>autistic
You mean he knew how he wanted it to look and knew how to achieve it with what he was working with.

it was raining outside

it looked fake as shit in the movie tho

It did? I usually notice this stuff all the time and can't believe it was filmed like this.

oh yeah well I respect your opinion but I disagree

Filming rights for a 2 min shot in new york would cost more than building an entire set.

but not every shot of cruise on the street is projection.
kubrick built a set.

no, its rear projection.

What, more comfortable? whats the difference? Dude was only walking down the street of New York, his characters emotion didn't exactly require groundbreaking method acting in these scenes? I also never noticed it was shot this way.

ask tom cruise?
wtf its like nobody here knows anything about filmmaking.

Because you are a fucking pleb, Kubrick and Lynch are pleb filters. They have not created a single movie worth it's weight in salt when played against real great directors (Ozu, Bergman, Goddard, Kurosawa)

Lynch and Kubrick are as close as Americans can come to modern cinematic greats. The only other directer that comes remotely close is arguably Welles.

You are American and they are American, that's why you like them.

Did Tom do his own stunts in EWS?

>has the black guy get axed for 78 takes
absolute madman

ah i see /lit/ has arrived

he still had all that shit from the moon landing so why not use it

anyone have a link to this scene?

god dammit your a fucking moron

>>>>/reddit/

He didn't want to move from his chair

get over it, buddy.

Why is everything Kubrick has ever done so amaz-

>user doesnt know abour aspect ratio's
>posting on a tv and film board

kys

have you guys watched this? what is this rubbish? 90% of these people are retarded or mentally ill

no. he wanted le weird dream feel to the scene. Also if you didn't immediately noticed it was a projection and cruise was walking on a treadmill, you're stupid and should watch more movies

Wow, now I just don't know anymore.

t. brainlets.

>you'll never watch kubrick's unfinished napoleon biopic

Filmed by a second unit, not Kubrick

Because he was a sociopath when it came to his craft, consistently mindbreaking people around him in the hunt for perfection
127 takes

yes, it's a total waste of time

For good Shining analysis, Check out Rob Ager's autistic site. It's actually fucking amazing.

you also are a fucking pleb, you like to talk about Godard but can't spell his name, and like to trash talk American cinema for the sake of contrarianism? I'm not even an American and it's clear to see that some of the greatest filmmakers ever have come from there (Hitchcock, Hawks, Chaplin)

grow up matey

>Hitchcock
>Chaplin

>American

> all these stupid theories
Money, you idiots. Money.
Is it more expensive to film in loco or on set? The cheapest it is.
It's the same thing nowadays with chroma key and cgi. Past decades cgi was superbly expensive, in such way that it was more plausible to equip and make up an entire army, or build a whole ship deck than actually do special digital effects. Nowadays it's the opposite.
This is a digital effect, just not computer savvy. If it had been cheaper to film in the streets (almost never is) they would have done it. Not even Kubrick can escape from that.

>greatest filmmakers ever have come from there
I'm not the person you're replying to, but you're embarrassing yourself.

>digital effect
Shit I meant special

Already been proven incorrect. Spielberg filmed Kubrick's movie,but Kubrick wanted Spielberg to film Spielberg's movie.

Isn't that against first amendment rights? Don't photographers have some sort of pass on public space?

I am the guy he was replying to. Holy shit did he embarrass himself.