The fact that so many people still name Stanley Kubrick as the greatest or most significant or most influential...

The fact that so many people still name Stanley Kubrick as the greatest or most significant or most influential director ever only tells you how far film still is from becoming a serious art.

Contemporary film makers never spoke highly of Kubrick, and for good reason. They could never figure out why his movies should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that Kubrick was simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to the Space Race, which had nothing to do with his film making merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in his (mediocre) films to this day.

Kubrick sold a lot of copies of his films not because he was the greatest director but simply because his films were easy to sell to the masses they had no difficult content, they had no technical innovations, they had no creative depth. He shot a bunch of catchy 3-minute scenes with some decent cinematography. If somebody had not invented the Space Race in 1957, you would not have wasted your time reading this post about such a trivial director.

He's a talentless hack, get over it.

Astro-Monster was Godzillakino

Fuck off, Scaruffi.

I honestly prefer the corridor shot on the left. I'm not sure why

Holy shit

you're gonna take some fag who drives a Honda over Kubrick??

The original Godzilla was better.

So professional jealousy?

But Scruffy boy loves Kubrick
>The science-fiction epic 2001: Space Odyssey (1968), scripted by Arthur Clarke, is a symphony of elegantly hypnotic images (set to classical music). Kubrick's indulging in his photography is a way to indulge in his philosophy: each scene is carefully orchestrated to deliver a (often cryptic) message. They are played in slow-motion, to give the audience time enough to absorb the whole picture. Kubrick's baroque chromatism sterilizes the sensationalism of action cinema.
The final scenes (and their symbolism) redeem the very slow pace of most scenes inside the spaceship.

...

Kubrick established himself way before 2001. Most people recognise that his best film is certainly not 2001 (not that it isn't a remarkable achievement in itself).
When Spartacus was released 6/7 years earlier than 2001, it had the highest budget of any hollywood film ever.

>tldr; get fucked and educate yourself

I'm no great defender of Kubrick, but if you think originality exists in any form of culture you're just naive. What's interesting about a film - any film - is how a particular filmmaker uses said tropes and techniques in order to discuss and put forward concepts and ideas.

I'm only reacting to the image posted, not the text, which I haven't read.

>Most people recognise that his best film is certainly not 2001
And they're wrong.

Lucas is better than both.

(You)

nice pasta

>it's the "Kubrick copied a literal who from Japan because I'm the only autistic weaboo whose seen said movie" post

Accurate, THX-1138 is better than any Kubrick flick

Who the fuck thinks Spartacus is his best film?

Paths of Glory or Barry Lyndon are cleary his best works

...

Lucas is the most important filmmaker since before the 1930s. However, I wouldn't say he was a better filmmaker than Kubrick

I actually agree Kubrick reputation in popular culture sets him way overrated on the whole, but he was also master and one of the few big budget art filmmakers to ever exist.

>Barry Lyndon
>clearly his best
are you fucking high? dipshit hipster pleb fucks i swear

>tumblr_mgzirdD2PT1rfduvxo1_400.gif

>t. weeb upset that no cares about his baby films

2/10 for making me reply

>Godzilla
>literal who

get the fuck of my bored you redditor

>Hating weebs on a weeb site.

>having such pleb pseudo-cinephile taste
>"b-but it's obscure so it's good!"

>its a Sup Forums is only mildly triggered by /lit/ episode.

well done, lads.
3 years ago this thread would have 200 replies by now but we are strong.