Overrated directors general

>mfw realizing that kubrick is a hack promoted by the (((media)))

His movies suck pretty bad. I can't believe I thought he was a top tier director. What was I smoking?

literally 2deep4u

>when you realized kubrick is widely appreciated amongst normies, and you don't want to be associated with normies by liking kubrick, so you decided to go full contrarian
same thing happened when rick and morty got more famous, and it got more famous between 2 and 3 season so that's the reason why anons on Sup Forums are saying every week that third season sucks.

He probably should have been the director of photography rather than the director on most of his pictures. All of them are beautifully shot, often using original techniques that he freely shared with the industry.

His moon landing science fiction he did for nasa is great considering the time period and tech he had available back then.

>His movies suck pretty bad
elaborate, nigger

I certainly like the way he shoots his movies, but I do find things like 2001 and Clockwerk Orange to be masquerading as philosophically a lot deeper than the are.

>promoted by the (((media)))
more like he had good reputation among his colleagues so he made a name

Rick and Morty was never good though, it's shtick stopped being amusing somewhere in the latter half of season one.

t. nigger

This holds true for all acclaimed American directors except for Terrence Malick.

They're not bad, it's just his fan base is the worst. They literally defend continuity errors saying he did it on purpose.

There is proof within 'A Clockwork Orange' that the brainwashing actually didn't work on Alex, and he was actually faking it the entire time.

What do the seven diamonds mean?

That's literally the point. Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Bruh there's nothing contrarian about not wanting to listen to "annoying voices" - the cartoon.

Literally 2deep4u at least as far as 2001 goes, I haven't figured out Clockwork Orange yet and I don't think I want to.

The holy trinity of overrated directors

Yeah I realized I phrased that stupidly. I don't mean the audience isn't sure if the brainwashing took, and whether Alex is faking, my bad. What I mean there is actual proof that the brainwashing didn't work in the first place, proof that it (the exact type of brainwashing he was subject to) actually never ever works on anyone, ever.

>Dude Kubrick was like such a perfectionist! everything is there for a reason no room for coincidence!

Kubrick is one of the best cinematographers to ever live.

R&M is good for western animation, but it should have ended at the end of season 2 when it was still going alright, and there are better animated comedies released every single season in Japan. The west rarely knows when to end a show.

Facts. 2001 was only decent because it had a massive fucking budget so it could afford to be the greatest sci-fi ever made. But Kubrick still managed to ruin it by making it an hour longer than it needed to be, added 15 straight minutes of shitty video effects, and tried be be way too 'deep' with the shitty meaningless ending sequence

Now poop on The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut, and Spartacus.

Yeah, no shit.

did you just equate kubrick with refn?

Okay, so what did Kubrick include to show that-that exact type of brainwashing never really works on anyone (not only Alex), if it's so obvious.

Normies can't even name a director besides Spielberg

Jewcubes

Lol, can you say "forced humor"? The japs are way worse at rehashing jokes and cliques than the west are. Most of it is just slapstick too.

Probably for the same reason he didn't include a presentation on why we don't suddenly fall into the sky when we step outside, or why we can't swim in to earths core or walk trough walls.

Because it's reduntant, that's why.

What do you have against Orson Welles, man?

Re-read the question.
>What DID Kubrick include to show that-that exact type of brainwashing never works on anyone (not only Alex), if it's so obvious?

There are 21 posters and 30 posts in this thread and not a single one can explain why Kubrick is overated nor why his movies sucks so bad.

Mind explaining to a brainlet what this proof is ?
And why Alex at the end says "I was cured" if he was never brainwashed ?

>a man who literally only adapts books
>a man who never wrote an original screenplay to express himself through the medium of film
>a man who is everything because of the works of actual great people (the writers)
>boring MUH PERSPECTIVE shots
>boring MUH SYMMETRICAL SHOTS
>exaggerated and over the top acting from his actors
>absolutely no subtlety in anything ranging from framing, blocking to acting
>everything has to be in your face in all of his """""""films"""""" LOOK AT ME I'M SPECIAL AND DIFFERENT
most of you faggots need to grow up if you still consider kubrick to be a great director

I'll rephrase my answer so even a slowpoke like you can understand it this time.

He didn't overly put any emphasis on explaining redundant things. Probably for the same reason he didn't include a presentation on why we don't suddenly fall into the sky when we step outside, or why we can't swim in to earths core or walk trough walls. There was no need to put any of this into the movie.

I also have a question. Did they include anything to show that-that exact type of brainwashing actually worked on anyone?

Nothing, but I don't think anyone would regard him as one of the greatest of all time like they would Kubrick. In fact, middle-brow directors like him are what America does best (see also: Ashby, Altman, Cimino, Coppola etc.)

>Mind explaining to a brainlet what this proof is ?
Give the other user I was talking to a chance to reply first, I think he's misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm just talking about little details and clues Kubrick likes to hide in his movies.

>why Alex at the end says "I was cured" if he was never brainwashed ?
He was faking it, just playing along.

If someone mentions the word "proof" in everyone of his posts but never evealuates beyond that just rule him out as a wannabe who doesn't know what the's talking about. It'll make your Sup Forums experience much better.

So was he promoted by the (((media))) or killed by them? You conspiracy fags have literal retardation

Oh, so you're just trolling, gotcha

Nice cop-out when backed against the wall there, bozo.

This - you tickets always go on about 'normie' directors, but normies don't know anything more than some lead actors.
Spielberg And Nolan would be all they know - maybe that Tarantino has made 1 film they've made or something.

>Hitler was right about a lot of things

What did Stanley Kubrick mean by this?

Could you be any more of a simple minded pleb? Seriously stick to Transformers and Snyder flicks. Stop talking about things that are above you, you're embarrassing yourself.

Because they're popular and all my self worth comes from being a unique snowflake

>Did they include anything to show that-that exact type of brainwashing actually worked on anyone?
No, but the audience is meant to think it worked, up until they figure it out.

Okay, I'm just gonna say what I'm talking about.
In the foreground, Kubrick keeps showing shots of this book 'The psychology of learning by Edwin Ray Guthrie', which he details how that type of brainwashing doesn't work, and is simply torture, and how torture doesn't work either.

No, Kubrick obviously doesn't overly put any emphasis on explaining redundant things or "include presentations", hes all about these sneaky little details that contradict what is happening on screen at the time.

Why did he allow himself to get beat up by the homeless people when there was no need?

>JJ
Overrated by whom? Never seen anybody praising this hack beyond something along the lines of "he's alright" (which I agree he is not)

>No, but the audience is meant to think it worked, up until they figure it out.
You've surely mastered the art of saying nothing at all when you speak. Care to evaluate and go into detail here?

>In the foreground, Kubrick keeps showing shots of this book...
Cool find. Not having read the book its presence in the movie went over my head. But your summary of it is more or less common knowledge among any semi-educated man since a few decades back. Hence me and that other posters earlier replies.

To be honest its been a while wince I watched it, I'd prolly have to give it a re-watch before answering. Its on the tip of my brain but I'm drawing a blank. Is that when he stand outside all night, wating to be noticed, or does it have something to so with beating up the hobo earlier...grr. I'm gonna pass on that question for now.

That's what overated means if all you can see is in black and white. You're either the hero of mankind with your movies(as long as you're obscure enough) or you're a total dogshit hack that deserves to get crushed by a bus.

It's the Hobo he beat up earlier. The standing out waiting to be noticed thing doesn't exist, kek

Normies.
He's not directing two star wars movies for no reason. Plebbit-tier people love him.

b-b-b-ut LLLLOOOOOSSSSTTTT

>The standing out waiting to be noticed thing doesn't exist, kek
towards the end theres a scene where hes just standing there, by the river, its a weirdly odd scene. kubrick doesnt make it obvious but we see the tide go all the way up and all the way down and the sun switches sides, implying he stood there all night until someone noticed him.

He was just kicked out of his home and left homeless. He was depressed, hopeless and likely thinking about his situation

it's not like that. I don't like things because I'm smart.

>jewlover callings others niggers
kek, watch more movies faggot

They're not super deep their just beautiful. And boring. Beautiful and boring.
But Kubrick is genuinely top tier for giving us Paths of Glory, Dr Strangelove, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket.
And Barry Lyndon, which takes boring and beautiful to a whole other level.

Now Hitchcock is a truly overrated director. Only one truly great film (Psycho) and a slew of B-grade stuff. Billy Wilder is the true 50s kino.

Swap JJ for Wes Anderson and it could work.

>their
>kino-posting
this is an 18+ board bucko

here pic related. theres 4 major visual errors in a short scene with no dialogue, and kubrick makes sure to show these pillars, we see he tide rise and fall and rise. at thios point in the movie Alex is famous, his face has been plastered all over tv, I believe he was standing there, looking forlorn as though hes contemplating suicide, waiting to get noticed so he can bring media attention to whats going on

spbp

that's one of my issues with Stanley Kubrick. Why didn't he ever create something original rather than just do adaptations? I think it would've been great, unless he couldn't think his way outside of a cardboard box.

Name five anime comedies you have watched.

Yeah, no.

Ouran hshc
Nichijou
Bakemonogatari
Toradora
Opm

Where are the major errors?

in that scene alex is staring down at the water right at the those pillars (notice the water level in both pics) and it keeps showing a a different amount of rungs around those pillars, showing how the water level goes down and back up.

Alright, so you've seen at most twenty series because you can't even name five actual comedies and resort mostly to shows where comedy is secondary, all of them entry level as fuck regardless.

Watch more anime before making sweeping statements about the medium.

Tiers of taste, from pleb to patrician:
>Kubrick is a great director. His movies bore the shit out of me but people say he's great so I'll say he's great too.
>Kubrick is a hack. His movies bore the shit out of me and people keep praising him so everyone else must be wrong.
>I like some Kubrick stuff. First half of FMJ is the only good part. I liked the Shining but I don't know why. Everything else is boring. 2001 is a slog.
>Kubrick is interesting. I can appreciate film as an artform so I can actually tell for myself why people appreciate him.

That isn't an error

Tell that to

I just think he's clever in the way he forces the viewer to look past the surface, often with little clues and details that otherwise might go unnoticed if it were any other director. That's the kind of stuff I was attempting to express why I have an interest in his movies. I want to go watch a movie now so I wo t be replying to this thread any further but I'll leave y'all with one more scene that makes this point.

In 2001, right at the beginning we see a scene of people around a table. There is a bright red coat hanging on the back of a chair a woman is sitting in. The camera angle switches, and once it switches back the red coat has disappeared, it's not on the chair and it's not on the woman.
Now, in any other movie this would be a simple continuity error, but in the very next scene as some men are talking we hear in the background over the speakers "a woman's red coat has been turned in to the lost and found". That's Kubricks way of saying "no, in wasn't an error, it was purposeful". So we can assume that any details later on that may seem like a continuity error are probably intentional, giving the viewers clues that there might be more going on beyond the surface. He forces the viewers to think.

Fucking yard. He's not faking it. If he was faking, why not attack the renter? Why stand before the river all suicidal? Why let the homeless beat him up? Why let the millicents drown him? Why clutch his head screaming over Beethoven and jump out a fucking window?
People like you that proclaim their little fan theories while turning a blind eye to what is clearly happening on screen belong on Reddit.

....and I'm out.

>it's a "Tasteless pleb who hasn't seen many movies defends Kubrick and calls critics contrarians" episode

>That's literally the point.
No it's not - that would blatantly undermine the theme of the movie.

Kubrick isn’t exactly normie fuel. What Kubrick movie have normies seen?

Look up Ludovico treatment you dingus.

The Shining. All normies

Normies would go
>80's
And be reluctant to watch it, if they even bother. They've probably heard of it, maybe even seen the Simpsons version, but that'd be it.
Though it seems to have been getting more attention on YouTube lately, so maybe that'll inspire some normies to watch it.

In real life it doesn't work.
In the book/film it's simply a metaphor for behaviorism and a critique of it. Kubrick's point is that it doesn't 'work' because you're not changing the individual, you're just censoring them.
The title CLOCKWORK ORANGE (hint- clockwork) makes no damn sense if he was faking it

This is 100% correct. Spielberg is forever underrated by plebs who want to seem like they're above studio films

Those are all me. I'm saying there is no error in the water level fluctuating over day/night

Kubrick should never be mentioned alongside the likes of Tarkovsky, Bergman, Ozu, Hitchcock, Ford and Griffith etc. He's not even in the top 50 directors of all time

I was one of the people responding to him a lot. Thanks for conveying my annoyance completely in these posts
Tfw to dumb and autistic to do that myself

Alex is liar (hence the long nose mask) nearly everything he says and and does is a lie, he's just using the treatment as cover to gain sympathy.

I'm the one who was saying the water level fluctuating is intentional. I assumed that the user who believes it WAS NOT intentional, thinks it was simply an error. If you believe that it WAS indeed intentional, and not an error, then please elaborate on why you think Kubrick showed these shots.

>he's just using the treatment as cover to gain sympathy.
How did he know he wasn't going to get killed by everyone that attacked him, including his old friends that took him to the middle of nowhere?

Look, man, let's say you're right. Let's say Kubrick hid a tiny detail of a book in his movie in which lies the whole secret of the story. What's the takeaway?
That teenagers are naughty and crave sympathy and that corporal punishment doesn't work? Not very profound.
It says nothing about the state vs the individual, the assimilation in propaganda of violence sex and pop art, the idea that the government is just as gang like as Alex, etc. By coming out of it at the end, and not having had faked it, Kubrick shows that no matter what we do to suppress it, there will always be evil in humanity, no matter our attempts to fix it. Our attempts to fix it never really 'fix' the evil, it can only suppress it. Yet the state CAN suppress it, and were able to for a short time with Alex, and he was not faking it

Great taste

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm using your exact language, you fucking retard (pic related.) You are trying to say they are intentional visual errors on the part of Kubrick. I am saying that they're not errors in the slightest- there are no errors in the water fluctuating in height as the day passes, it's what normally fucking happens.

Lynch

Literally the Rick and Morty of directors

People that first attacked him were old hobos. When his old friend took him away for a beating his plan backfired and he was actually in danger.

>Lynch
That only applies to Twin Peaks and Mullholand Drive.

Even if he was trying to gain sympathy, as you say, he wasn't going to get it there.
Alright- if you can explain the Clockwork in Clockwork Orange, and if you can explain why at the writer's house, he pretended that Beethoven was actually hurting him, and willingly jumped out of the second/third story window onto his head, then you'd have a little more credibility.
And don't you dare say that he did it to gain the sympathy of the government so that they'd give him a job (as happens at the end of the film) because there's no way he foresaw that happening, let alone surviving that fall.

I like how you autismos argue over what this and that meant in a clockwork orange and you're both all up kubrick's ass and all over his dick AND YET the fucking AUTHOR of the BOOK that piece of shit movie is based on fucking HATED IT.
the AUTHOR literally said: the man ruined my book and he got it all wrong, I wish I would've never wrote that book.
fuck kubrick

you wanna hop on skype? obviously the context has been lost in translation.

I brought up the water level point yo begin with, I said it implied he was standing there for a long time, look that the picture: that change in the height of the water takes hours. period.

some user (you?) comes along and says that he disagrees.

so after that, I assumed you were implying that it was simply an error... which is why i was like "4 errors... no dialogue....focusing in on the pillar, really dude?"

its hard to argue against someone who doesnt even make it clear what their point of view actually is... so lets start again shall we?

so you also believe that the water level shots were indeed intentional, but that it wouldnt take hours for that to happen? interesting, so what is your theory exactly?